Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL AVIATION BILL [Lords]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [5th July], That the Clause (FACILITIES FOR CONSULTATION AT CERTAIN AERODROMES) proposed on Consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), be read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

Mr. Speaker: I have posted up, as is my custom, the selected Amendments on this and the next Bill.

11.6 a.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: It might be for the convenience of the House if, rather than picking up the threads of my speech where they were snatched from me a fortnight ago, I were to recapitulate the questions I put on this new Clause. Hon. Members in all parts of the House, I believe, welcome it, originating as it did from the proposition put forward by the Opposition and incorporating in its new form certain drafting improvements which we do not wish to oppose.
I ask the Minister, in regard to the interpretation he would seek to put on the new Clause, two questions. The first is, what type of airfield he thinks would qualify for the designation. Secondly, how would he define adequate facilities? I think we recognise that there are throughout the country a number of airfields where traffic is building up and where there is no statutory requirement for any form of consultation between the management of the airport and those living around it or making use of it whose interests are, or would be, affected. Some cases have already been instanced. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test

(Mr. R. C. Mitchell) mentioned Southampton Airport and today we may hear mention of Luton Airport, Birmingham Airport and Abbotsinch Airport or a number of airfields where traffic is increasing, and as a result perhaps causing local residents to be somewhat more disturbed than in the past.
In addition to airfields which one could call fairly definite future centres of internal and external traffic, there is a category which I should like the Minister to consider. It is airfields where the main activity is club flying. I have had some correspondence with him in the last few weeks in which I have put a particular case which affects my constituency. It is the possibility of future development at Fairoaks, in the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), but which affects a number of my constituents because the use made of it is thought by some of them to cause annoyance. In a case such as this, would the Minister make use of the designating powers which the new Clause will give him?
If the Minister answers that this is very different from, say, Luton or Southampton airfields, I concede the point at once, but I would not necessarily agree that the facilities for consultation at this stage have to be precisely the same or have to be set up in precisely the same way as in other cases. I certainly would argue that if he is reluctant at this stage to extend very widely outside the more obvious cases the requirement for consultation under the Clause, there is at least an arguable case for running a number of pilot schemes. I should like him to give consideration to the possibility of applying this procedure to airfields where the main activity is not so much scheduled or charter jet services but other forms of activity which impinges on local residents.
The second point concerns the definition of "adequate facilities". Perhaps this phrase will be reasonably defined only in the light of experience. Some of the experience we already have of similar provisions under the Airports Authority Act will be helpful. What has happened at Heathrow and Gatwick, and what we hope will happen at Stansted, sets a pattern as to what might be done in the case of the aerodromes we are now considering.
It is important that an outline should be given of how the Minister sees these words being interpreted, both for the guidance of airport managements and for the information of those who would hope to have the opportunity of making use of facilities of this kind for consultation.
I think that there is some anxiety on the part of some of the municipal airport operators that the provisions of the Clause may put them to some trouble and expense. I should have thought that these anxieties were exaggerated. I think it unlikely that any very considerable expense could result from setting up any sort of consultative machinery. I doubt very much whether it would be a major financial burden on their operations. It would be useful if the Minister could take this opportunity to reassure them on that point.
What follows after consultation? When consultation has taken place through the facilities provided between the airport management and all the other parties who are entitled to be consulted, what does the Minister see as the logical consequence? Does he think that there should be an obligation upon the airport management to take account of representations made to it; and how far does he think it should go? I realise that these are very difficult questions for him to answer in abstract, but if he can give an indication of his thinking, it would be helpful because, valuable though the consultative facilities will be—I think that they will be valuable, not least to hon. Members, who would otherwise find the complaints coming straight to them—their value will depend largely on an understanding in the public mind that after consultation there will be action. If there are representations that the established flight-paths cause unnecessary annoyance to local residents, or if there are other consequences of the airport's operation and expansion which affect the interests of people living round about, they will need to know that there is some obligation upon the management to take account of these and to alter the way in which it has hitherto administered these aspects of its activities.
I realise that it is difficult to go beyond that at this stage. Much will depend on how the Clause is operated in practice. We would certainly accept any declaration by the Minister that he would

operate it in the most reasonable and sensible way. The problem is the impact of airfields on people, and we must all agree that it is very much in the public interest, and in the interest of the aviation industry, that the causes of friction should be removed so far as possible. Where they cannot be removed entirely, at least the reasons for their existence should be clearly understood and discussed, because my experience, and that of many other hon. Members, will probably serve to show that, unless there is some safety valve in an area like this, where grievances can quickly build up, there is a tendency for public reaction to become exaggerated and for people to take views about it which are not reasonable but which they can scarcely be blamed for holding and advancing when they have no opportunity to make their points, to discuss them, to have them answered, and to have the assurance that, where they have grievances, they have some expectation that action will be taken to put their grievances right.
If I can leave it to the Minister to give as full an answer as he can to those words, I would simply reiterate that the Clause is a further improvement to a Bill which has been much improved in its passage through the House, and it is an improvement, I believe, for which many people throughout the country will in due course have reason to thank both sides of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that with the new Clause we are discussing the two Amendments to the proposed Clause:
a, in subsection (3) to leave out 'under this section' and insert:
'made by statutory instrument subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament'.
b, in subsection (3) at the end to add:
'but any order varying or revoking a previous order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. W. Howie: I beg to move—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing the hon. Gentleman's Amendment to the proposed Clause. He cannot move it.

Mr. Howie: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. Amendment b, which stands in my name, arises from the Amendment which was tabled by Opposition Members. It appears that the Government were prepared to accept the spirit of that Amendment but that it did not follow the usual form of words which Parliamentary draftsmen use for specifying that an order should be subject to annulment by a negative resolution. I am a great believer in doing everything in the correct way. I have therefore been advised on what the correct words should be and I have tabled them, with the assistance of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. This is probably the only time in my life that I have ever had an Amendment on the Notice Paper which starts with a very good chance of being accepted.
Much credit is due to the Opposition Front Bench, first because the Clause arises from one tabled by the Opposition in Committee, and secondly because of the Opposition Amendment to the proposed Clause, which was right in principle, if not in its drafting.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Minister of State's predecessor said this about the Opposition's new Clause:
… I begin to think of one local authority airport, which I shall not mention by name, where I am not absolutely satisfied in my own mind, in view of recent developments, that machinery for consultation is adequate." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G; 20th June, 1968, c. 312.]
I have no idea which local authority my hon. Friend had in mind. Suffice it to say that, had he intended to speak of Luton Airport, this sentence would have applied absolutely accurately. I do not know if my hon. Friend was referring to Luton Airport. Obviously, I cannot say that he was. The consultation between the authorities at Luton and my constituents is not very good. It is suspected in Luton, and even more strongly in surrounding areas, that Luton Corporation intends to expand its airport considerably. The Corporation is thought to be intending to spend about £9 million to £10 million on it.
I say that the Corporation is thought to be so intending, because nobody knows. The local auhority will not admit that it intends to expand. It is deduced that it intends to expand. The fact that nobody knows whether the Corporation intends to expand its airport is proof

that the consultation is much less than adequate.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hemp-stead (Mr. Allason) has devised a form of consultation which is very suitable. He receives letters from his constituents complaining about Luton Airport, and he sends them on to me. He deals with them as well, but sends them on to me, and I utter a shrill cry of pain and try to do something about it, but there is very little that can be done.
The consultative body, whatever it turns out to be, is proved to be absolutely necessary in the Luton context, if in no other. Luton Airport is on the extreme edge of the borough. If the borough were a square, the airport would be in the bottom right-hand corner. The flight paths in and out of the airport fly over other contiguous local authorities, whether urban, rural district, or county council.
The interesting point is that, in so far as there is direct profit to be gained from the airport, it goes to Luton, but in so far as there is a great deal of nuisance and annoyance derived from the airport, that is carried more heavily by the surrounding areas. Therefore, the obvious means of redress, namely, action through the local authority elections, is not very satisfactory in the Luton context [An HON. MEMBER: "Or in others."] That may be so, but particularly in Luton, since the major weight of pain is carried by people outside the borough, that means of redress is not really open to the people concerned. In any case, local authority elections and such matters are carried on in a rather wider context than just one specific quarrel. It is clear, therefore, that a consultative body is much needed.
Now, the questions which arise from acceptance of the principle of a consultative body. First, what will it comprise? I dare say that the Minister has given thought to this, but the new Clause says little about it. Who would be represented on the consultative committee, assuming that it is to be a committee? For example, the Ratepayers Association of Luton has made representations. Would such an organisation be directly represented? I notice that the Amalgamated Engineering Union—I am not sure what its name is now, and I think I have it wrong; I seem to be very


much tied up with unions nowadays— the Amalgamated Engineering and Foundry Workers Union has made direct representations to the Department of Employment and Productivity about the nuisance caused by Luton Airport. Would a trade union be an appropriate body for direct representation or, perhaps, through the trades council?
Next, the question of facilities. What would the facilities be, and, more important, who would decide whether the facilities were adequate? Would the owner, the local authority operating the airport —in this case the Borough Council— which provided the facilities decide that they were adequate, or would the facilities be judged by, say, the Board of Trade or another Ministry? If they were thought adequate, what range of consultation would the Minister have in mind? I assume that the question would cover the physical expansion of an airport, as appears to be likely in Luton, but would it cover in addition what one might call the business expansion of an airport? If new operators came to the already thriving airport and proposed scheduled flights or charter flights, would that business decision be a matter upon which public consultation would be sought?
Would the consultation cover certain basic matters as to whether jet aircraft were permitted to use the airport, and, more particularly, would the consultation cover the question of permission for night flights of jet aircraft? If such flights were permitted, would the number of night flights come into consideration? All these are matters for precise and close consultation.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to answer these questions. I strongly support the underlying principle of the new Clause, and I consider that my Amendment (a) will strengthen it substantially.

Mr. James Allason: As the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) has said, there is grave concern in our part of the country about the extension of flying at Luton Airport. This year, B.A.C. 111s started flying. I do not know where they make the most of their noise, but they certainly make a great deal over my cottage, which seems to be roughly in line with the runway, in the Hemel Hempstead Rural

District Council area. This month, Boeing 737s started, and they also make a pretty foul noise and they seem to fly fairly low. Yet to come are the Convair Coronados which, I believe, are just about the noisiest aircraft likely to be found anywhere.
It is not surprising, therefore, that there is concern not just in and around Luton at the way in which Luton Airport is operating. The hon. Member for Luton spoke of the possibility of doing away with night flights, but I understand that the difficulty here is that, unless jets are operated to full capacity, they are not really worth operating at all. It seems that there will have to be a certain number of night flights, but they should be strictly controlled, and controlled by the Government.
The new Clause refers to the possibility of neighbouring local authorities being consulted. What is a neighbouring local authority? Clearly the Hemel Hempstead Rural District Council would be a neighbouring authority, being not far from the town of Luton, but the rest of my constituency is concerned, too. More distant district councils, for instance, Berkhamsted and St. Albans, are deeply concerned. So are the Harpenden and Tring Urban District Councils, for the noise goes on over a long distance. Would the term "neighbouring" cover a distance of up to, say, 10 miles?
On 13th March I raised the question of noise with the Minister of State at the Board of Trade and he replied:
In my view, this is a matter for the airport owners, Luton Corporation, who are best placed to decide what restrictions are necessary.
I responded that the Government had a duty to concern themselves in the matter, to which the Minister replied:
I fully agree that people must be protected, but this is a corporation of elected representatives. They are right on the spot and I think that they will watch the interests of their own people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 1359–60.]
I wonder what "the interests of their own people" are. I suppose that those interests are the welfare of Luton Corporation and of Luton Airport; they certainly do not cover an interest in the welfare of my constituents, yet my constituents ought to be consulted.
We have formed a body known as the Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, which now has a good number of members and is very active in trying to induce Luton Corporation to do something about noise. But it does not seem to be having great success. We have noisier and noisier aircraft and more and more flights travelling over urban areas.

Mr. John Rankin: Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that we are producing noisier and noisier aircraft today?

Mr. Allason: I gave the sequence in which aircraft had come to Luton, and I spoke finally of the Convair Coronado. I do not know exactly at what point this aircraft will arrive, but I am told that it is quite the noisiest. Luton Airport certainly is carrying noisier and noisier aircraft.
I shall not weary the House with a series of examples, but here is one. It concerns Boeing 737s. This is one letter which I have received:
On Friday, 12th July, during the course of 25 minutes centred on 21.30 hours approximately, a Boeing 737 flew over five times emitting a trail of black smoke and disturbing by noise my concentration on my academic work. At this time the Control Tower had told my wife that the aircraft had been instructed to keep clear of Harpenden. This aircraft was at a very low altitude.
(ii) Saturday, 13th July. My wife and I were both awakened at 06.30 hours by a very low-flying aircraft.
(iii) During the course of Saturday, the Boeing 737 caused disturbance and emitted black smoke at very low altitude on numerous occasions.
(iv) Sunday, 14th July, I was awakened by a low-flying aircraft at 02.00 hours, and just as I was settling down to sleep again I was disturbed further at 03.00 hours. Another low-flying jet at 03.30 also woke my wife, and removed any possibility of sleep that night for both of us.
(v) As I am writing this letter on Sunday morning the Boeing 737 has again caused violent disturbance.
We have now suffered considerable disturbance on an increasing basis for several months. (I would remind you of our previous worst night, 1st July, when we were both disturbed at the following times: 00.25, 00.45, 01.45. 02.30, 03.30 hours and had no sleep at all.)
My wife and I are both professional people and we are finding it increasingly difficult to carry out our professional duties efficiently

during the day because we are suffering from the lack of so much sleep. I wish you to bring this letter to the notice of the Airport Committee before it decides to spend £15,000 on a consultant's fee for the development of this airport.
11.30 a.m.
This letter has been sent to the President of the Board of Trade, and is one example of somebody living in a town being seriously upset by the present arrangements at Luton Airport. There is a possibility of extending the airport, and it is appalling that the Luton Airport authorities are apparently entitled to ride rough shod over the opinions, and to the detriment of the comfort, of those living nearby. I hope that the Clause is sufficiently strong to bring pressure upon Luton Airport to ensure that the lives of of those living around the airport are not made intolerable.

Mr. F. A. Burden: On a point of order. Subject to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we are getting a little wide of the Clause. A Clause which will be discussed later on deals specifically with the control of noise, and this matter could be discussed then.

Mr. Speaker: Now that we have started in this way, it would be better if we carried on and restricted our debate on the later Clause. I hope that in arguing the need for this Clause hon. Members will not pursue examples in too much detail.

Mr. Rankin: I take it that in discussing the Clause the House is meeting as a body of people primarily interested in one of the greatest industries owned by Britain, that is, the aircraft industry and all that is associated with it. There are employed in this industry 245,000 persons, doing a magnificent job and producing aircraft unequalled in the world. Although I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) said, I cannot support his arguments.
I travel in the Trident 3B and I have been travelling in that aircraft ever since it took the air. It is not unduly noisy. I would not support anyone who suggests that an aircraft is noisy, for this reason; whether we like it or not, people want to travel in aircraft at much greater speed than when I started to fly 20 years


ago. In those days aircraft flew at 95 m.p.h. No one today would tolerate that, and no operator would dream of putting an aircraft of that type into the air.

Mr. Speaker: We must come to the Clause.

Mr. Philip Holland: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me—

Mr. Speaker: I hope that we shall get to the Clause itself when the hon. Gentleman has given way.

Mr. Holland: The hon. Gentleman was referring to noise levels and the possibility of complaints under the consultation procedure. When he spoke of the noise level of the Trident, was he referring to the noise level when he is in the Trident as a passenger, with the engines behind him and in a sound-proof cabin, or was he referring to the noise made by the Trident in revving up on the ground and coming in to land, which affects people living below?

Mr. Rankin: I hope that when we talk of noise during the debate we need not indulge in the process of dissection that the hon. Gentleman has just indicated. When we talk about the noise made by an aircraft, generally we mean the noise made by an aicraft flying in the air above us. That is the test. Hon. Members know that the aircraft noise is not heard to the same extent by the passengers. I hope that it will be understood that when we speak of noise we speak of the noise made by an aircraft flying overhead.
I am either lucky or unlucky, but not only do I fly in the Trident 3B—and I hope to be flying in it tonight—but I also sleep in the aircraft—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must come to the Clause, which seeks to set up machinery for consultation.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: The Trident 3B has not yet been built.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Gentleman will have to wake up; the aircraft is flying.

Mr. Corfield: Not the Trident 3B.

Mr. Rankin: I do not know which aircraft the hon. Gentleman refers to;

it may be one in his imagination. However, that aircraft was mentioned by his hon. Friend.

Mr. Allason: Mr. Allason rose—

Mr. Speaker: We must get on with the debate.

Mr. Rankin: The aircraft to which the hon. Gentleman referred is an aircraft which is now in general use and an aircraft which is not distinguished by its noise.
I wish to refer specifically to the Clause before us. If it is understood that we are dealing only with the Clause and that ancillary matters can be dealt with later, then I am satisfied, but I understood that the debate would cover not only the wording of the Clause but the matters to which I referred, and that we would be able to discuss noise.

Mr. Speaker: We are not discussing noise itself in this debate. It can be argued that one of the matters to which the machinery of consultation which the Clause seeks to set up might be referred is disturbance caused by noise.

Mr. Rankin: I will leave it at that, Mr. Speaker, and, if necessary, return later to the topic of noise. To deal specifically with the Clause, the Clause states:
This section applies to any aerodrome which is managed by a person other than the British Airports Authority….
I take it that, as worded, the Clause excludes from its effect the British Airports Authority, and that exclusion applies to any aerodrome managed by the Authority. The British Airports Authority manages Prestwick. Therefore, Prestwick would be excluded from the Clause—

Mr. Onslow: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me? I may be able to clarify the position.

Mr. Rankin: No. I am not giving way. Clarification will come from the Minister.
As I was saying, Prestwick is excluded. Prestwick is within easy reach of Abbotsinch, yet Abbotsinch will come within the purview of the Clause. Gatwick will be excluded, according to the Clause. If these words do not mean what they say, I take it that my hon. Friend will say


so in due course. In addition, Edinburgh has refused and still refuses to take over its own airport, and I understand that negotiations are proceeding whereby the airport there will be taken over by the British Airports Authority.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): Perhaps I might help my hon. Friend, though I had it in mind to wait until I replied to the general discussion. I think that he will recall that, in the British Airports Authority Act of 1965 there is provision for the consultative facilities. The purpose of the Clause is to extend the possibility of providing these facilities for all airports.

Mr. Rankin: Very well. I take up that point, then, on the phrase which asks for
adequate facilities for consultation with respect to any matter concerning the management or administration of the aerodrome which affects their interest".
Those are very wide powers, in my view. One wonders how the management of an airport will be affected by this arrangement. Here is a new committee ostensibly created for the purpose of dealing with the problem of noise, but which will also have some say in the management or administration of the airport concerned. If a company operating from that airport decides to have a particular aircraft, it will not be merely a matter of management and administration for the airport, but can come under the supervision of the committee created to deal with noise which, through that channel, can assume a position in management.
As I indicated earlier, aircraft are getting bigger and bigger and flying faster and faster. One cannot by any conceivable means have more powerful aircraft travelling more quickly without having engines which make more noise. Noise is associated with power. However, thanks to the genius of our technologists, we are beginning to build engines which have power without necessarily increasing the noise. The best example of that was the BAC211—

11.45 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are drifting again into a general debate on whether aeroplanes should be noisy. We must keep to the issue of whether we set up consultative committees.

Mr. Rankin: I was merely illustrating this because of the phrase in the Clause allowing the proposed committees dealing with noise possibly to intervene in management and administration. It can be easily seen how that could happen.
Design proposals for the Boeing 747 are now being reviewed. That aircraft might be one of the noisiest creatures that we have ever had in the air. If operators want to use that machine—and the demand today is for that type of machine—the problem of using it will come before the committees dealing with noise which will be operating at almost every airport in the United Kingdom. It follows that such a committee must have a voice, whether or not it is a deciding voice, in seeing what type of new aircraft will be flown from its airport. In my view, that is conferring powers on such a committee which it ought not to have.
That does not mean to say that those of us who look at the problem in this light want to see noisy aircraft. No one does. Certainly I do not. But I know from experience that this talk about noise is very much overplayed. I say that because I have the experience in London of sleeping beneath the flight path of outgoing and incoming aircraft, and I have the same experience at Abbotsinch.
In the Press yesterday, there was an indication that a committee would be formed in Renfrewshire on similar lines to those existing in several parts of England. That news item mentioned a town which is not near an airport. I lived in it for a number of years; the town of Barrhead. It is not near to any flight path; and it can hardly be said to be near any airport. Yet it is suffering from aircraft noise.
I believe that the problem is exaggerated, and I am also firmly of the opinion that the men concerned with building aircraft and engines from design through all other stages are as much seized of the problems as any noise committee could be, and they are concerned with the production of good, fast, capable aircraft large enough to meet the demands of the age in which we live.
In welcoming my hon. Friend to this job, and wishing him every success in it, I hope he will proceed very carefully in dealing with this Clause.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the House that we are on the first of a number of Amendments to the first of three Bills on the Order Paper. We have a lot of work to do.

Mr. Burden: This is a very important Clause involving a number of issues which can be raised only at this time. I should like to express my pleasure at seeing the new Minister of State present, and I ask him to convey to his hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) our appreciation of the wonderful help which he gave the Standing Committee.
I find myself in some conflict with my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), who read out a whole catalogue of complaints, apparently from one person. The complaints would have had more validity if they had come from more than one person and they would have been even more valid if that person had resided near an aerodrome, or in any of the many London streets where lorries make so much noise.

Mr. Anthony Royle: If my hon. Friend is in any need of a detailed catalogue of complaints about aircraft noise, I assure him that I get plenty from Richmond and Barnes in my constituency.

Mr. Burden: ; Of course there is a problem, but it must also be accepted that many people take these matters to extremes.

Mr. Allason: Really.

Mr. Burden: It is all very well for my hon. Friend to say, "Really!", but many people complain without proper justification. I must admit my interest in that I am a director of an airline, but I hope that that does not in any way obscure my judgment.
Responsibility to civil aviation was placed on the Board of Trade in 1966 and this is one of the measures to regulate its position and enable it to carry out its duties. Under Section 1 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, the Board of Trade is also charged with the general duty of organising, carrying out and encouraging measures for the development of civil aviation. The Bill is a move in that direction.
I freely admit that the Board of Trade gets many complaints about jets flying at night, but the United Kingdom is the only country with regulations to the extent which we have them to control jet night flying. These proposals—and I am sure that this is one of the reasons for the consultation Clause—will interfere even more with flying, and I am sure that the Minister will be concerned to encourage co-operation and understanding among interested persons so that airports shall be used as much as is practicable.
The only legislative obligation on the Board of Trade is that mentioned in Section 14 of the Airports Authority Act, 1965, which requires the British Airport Authority, and which will now require others, to
take such measures as the Minister may direct for limiting noise and vibration or mitigating their affects and, in particular, in restricting their effects and for restricting the use of any aerodrome owned or managed by the Authority to aircraft and persons complying with the Minister's requirements in that behalf.
The Minister, therefore, already has considerable power, and I presume that, under this new Clause, he will take the opportunity to widen his powers of designation to ensure the closest cooperation and discussion with interested parties.
But it will be very difficult for him to decide where the restrictions on interests should be. Must it be a group of people? Should people organise themselves into groups in order to minimise the effects of noise? To what extent should interested parties group themselves together? What interests would be regarded as coming within the purview of the Clause? All these matters are left rather vague at the moment, and we should have some elucidation.
In any event, the Government must hold a reasonable balance between the benefits of maximum operation of the great international and local authority airports and economic dividends. For every 1 million passengers who come into London Airport, £12 million accrue to this country, which shows the tremendous importance of ensuring the fullest possible use of our airports.
Of course we want all the safeguards to limit vibration and noise and those of my hon. Friends who are worried


about what may happen at Luton and other local authority airports should remember the example of London. In 1966, the number of jet night flights from London was fixed at 3,500. The total number then amounted to about 8,000 including also turbo-prop and propeller aircraft. There has been a steady diminution in numbers since then, because of the phasing out of propeller and turbo-prop aircraft. The Minister has power to ensure that there is no undue noise and that power has already been exercised.

Sir George Sinclair: Does not my hon. Friend realise that the limitation on night flights at London Airport has had the result of diverting many of them to another London airport, Gatwick, in my constituency?

Mr. Burden: I appreciate that, but the Minister has power to limit night flights from Gatwick if he thinks it right to do so.
There will always be some nuisance from aircraft noise, but the aircraft industry is of tremendous importance to these islands and we have to try to strike a very delicate balance, I do not envy the Minister his job in this respect. I am sure that, when the consultative machinery is set up, the Minister will make use of the fact that considerable efforts are now being made to reduce the noise of aircraft—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting into a general discussion of noise. We are talking about machinery for consultation.

12 noon.

Mr. Burden: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can deal with this point more fully on Third Reading.
I know that the Minister is aware of the fact that very considerable measures are being taken, and in this context it is important that he should also ensure that there is considerable flexibility in the discussions with interested parties, because of the improvements and constant changes in circumstances that can influence judgment and consideration. In principle, we all welcome the broadest consultation, but it will be extremely difficult for the Minister to ensure that con-

sultation is reasonable and proper and that it safeguards the rights of those who are interested in reducing noise and other matters that might arise. It is essential not only that the Minister should bear in mind the proper rights of the aircraft industry, including the operators, but that people who at times might find unpleasant the very considerable noise from aircraft should be brought to realise the enormous economic advantages that this industry brings to the country.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to the House for a misstatement. My reference should have been to the Trident 2B, not to the Trident 3B.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order, but it is a point of great interest.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Listening to this debate, it is astonishing to realise that on Second Reading this Bill contained no reference to or powers in relation to noise. What has happened to this Measure between that stage and this constitutes an enormous victory for the anti-noise lobby, and this should be generally realised. As it is, the Minister will have new powers. The new Clause gives the Minister powers in relation to local authority and other aerodromes that he already possesses in relation to British Airports Authority aerodromes.
At the same time, one may well ask why the consultation powers that have existed for quite a long time in regard to Airports Authority aerodromes have been so ineffective—as, by and large, they have. The consultation that has taken place since 1965 has not reduced the general volume of aircraft noise. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) has pointed out that in some respects successful attempts are being made to quieten the jet, but even he will not dispute that the totality of aircraft noise has increased in recent years, and is likely to go on increasing, and the invention of the jet has made the noise peculiarly irritating to people.

Mr. Rankin: When my hon. Friend refers to the totality of noise, has he in mind the fact that so many aircraft are now flying and that few were flying before? Does he refer merely to their numbers?

Mr. Jenkins: No, I refer not only to the number of aircraft but to the amount of noise they make, and to the fact that jet aircraft are noisier than their predecessors. The chief factor is the total quantity of noise. A limited amount of noise, whether from a local authority or other aerodrome can be tolerated, but if it occurs time and time again it becomes intolerable.
The Clause constitutes a profound change. The reason why consultation has until now been unsatisfactory is that the Minister did not have specific powers in relation to noise. By Clause 18 the Minister acquires powers specifically related to noise, and that is why his responsibilities in relation to the whole process of consultation, not only with local authority aerodrome but with aerodromes generally, will acquire a reality and an effectiveness which until now they have not had.

Sir G. Sinclair: It is important that there should be consultative machinery even in the airports outside the control of the British Airports Authority. I would not go so far as did the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), who said that up to now these consultation powers had not been effective. I believe that they are becoming more effective. But it is important that they should be in the hands of local authorities, which have the capacity to deal with these problems at the right level.
In the Gatwick area we have a consultative committee based on the county council. It has recently proved effective. But it has proved the more effective because there are also local and national protest groups which have organised themselves to put forward their grievances and requests in an orderly and disciplined manner. Such bodies are needed. They collaborate with and stimulate the consultative body, which covers many subjects apart from noise—as, for instance, the benefits to trade in the locality as the services grow up round the airport, and the economic growth points and the planning problems that the airports help to create. But the protest groups are important for the protection of ordinary people living in the area who are affected by the aircraft noise of landings, take-offs and stacking round the airports: they should have disciplined bodies which earn

for themselves access either through consultative bodies or direct to the Minister to take up the subject of noise which can, if unchecked, be a great infringement of the personal liberty of people round the airports.
All of us who look at this problem in the round want the air traffic to perform its quite wonderful function in opening up one country to another, and opening trade and ideas. We do not want that to be reduced, but we do want through well organised channels to be able to bring the pressure of public opinion to bear on the Ministry and through the Ministry to the aircraft industry to design quieter engines. This is a function of the consultative committees backed by protest movements.
I pay my tribute to this combination in the Gatwick area in order to give heart to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), who is hard by Luton. Recently, this consultative committee has worked closely with the Minister. It has had many meetings with him and with the Parliamentary Secretary. In the end, we have got noise levels established in that area which I do not think would have been established as early or as specifically without good and lively consultation machinery, backed by us the local Members of Parliament and a local protest group and the headquarters of the national protest group, which is the British Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, which are becoming disciplined bodies working very closely with the consultative committee.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that to some extent the excellent activity which has occurred at Gatwick has been necessary because of equally effective activity occurring round Heathrow, in the sense that we have succeeded in dispersing some noise to him? Does not he agree that what is needed is not specific activity in certain areas but the generalised activity which may stem from this Bill?

Sir G. Sinclair: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point. It is important that this should be treated as a national matter. There would be a great gap if the consultative bodies were prevented from taking action in connection with airports that, although small today, may be very crowded and noisy in a


few years' time. People living round those airports should get into the habit of disciplined consultations early on, and should see that the airport authorities take the local populations into their confidence and tell them what they are trying to achieve and how they hope to mitigate noise and make life tolerable in the vicinity. This has been done to a great extent by the airport authority in the Gatwick area, which has gone out of its way to establish good relations with the people living round about.
The Minister doubtless realises that he is dealing with more than a national protest about unchecked noise; it is an international matter. That is why various consultative and protest bodies are now organising internationally to deal with this problem. A noisy jet which starts its journey at Tokyo will be just as noisy when it takes off again from Heathrow or Gatwick. This must be controlled on an international basis. The consultative bodies and protest bodies working together should put pressure on the Minister and on the aircraft industry. This Clause is a welcome contribution to the adjustment that will have to take place between the needs of modern air travel and legitimate interests of those who are affected by aircraft noise.

Mr. A. Royle: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) said. I go further than he does in connection with the formation and membership of the new consultative bodies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who has been largely responsible for getting this Clause agreed by the Government. He has done a good job, not only in respect of the running of airports throughout the United Kingdom but also in respect of the people who are affected by aircraft noise.
The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), whose constituency borders mine, has as much knowledge as I have of the subject, and his constituents suffer as much as mine do from the noise of aircraft approaching London Airport. He and I know how important the consultative machinery is. I go with him more than I go with my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking in agree-

ing that there is a lack of impact by these consultative committees. They meet regularly and have the benefits of the administration and organisation of great local authorities behind them, but in the consultations in which they have been concerned a real sense of urgency has been seen only when Members of Parliament representing areas round about, and associations such as the British Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, and the one in my constituency—the Kew Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise—came on the scene.
These bodies are not composed of cranks; their members want to see realistic proposals put forward, in cooperation with airport authorities. I hope that in the future, as a result of this sensible and realistic Clause, firm action will be taken in respect of other local aerodromes.
I was a little concerned when my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) spoke earlier about the agreed 3,500 limit on night flights. This matter considerably affects the setting up of consultative committees. My hon. Friend was right in saying that the Minister agreed this limit in 1966. I detected that my hon. Friend welcomed it, but I also detected a hint in what he was saying that in view of the increase in aircraft movement since that time he might want the Minister to raise the limit. I hope that the Minister will disillusion my hon. Friend.

Mr. Burden: The number of night flights has been reduced, and at a later stage I shall probably deal with the reasons why this limit should be looked at again. Future jets will be only half as noisy as the present ones.

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Royle: That is what worries me. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press that view too far—or, if he does, I hope that the Minister will not accept it. It will be a long time before the noise of a jet aircraft is halved. I hope that it will be in my lifetime, or in my hon. Friend's lifetime, but I have grave doubt whether it will come in either of our lifetimes. I know that the aircraft industry is working very hard to produce quieter aircraft. That is important, bearing in mind that the new consultative


machinery will have to discuss with the owners and occupiers of airports the annoyance caused by aircraft coming in to land as well as taking off. In my view the fact that the aircraft industry is working hard to produce quieter jets will begin to take effect in six, seven or eight years' time. In the meantime it is important that there should be financial incentives to operators using aerodromes to make use of quieter aircraft.
This has begun to be accepted internationally, as a result of the very good conference that the Minister of State's predecessor—the present Postmaster-General—instituted two or three years ago. This was a good move, and it has set up among international bodies a train of thought and co-operation concerning aircraft noise and the running of airports which will be very benficial to the nation. The Clause is extremely useful. It is appreciated by those hon. Members who represent constituents who are suffering an intolerable strain from the noise caused by aircraft.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) that this noise is exaggerated. It may be exaggerated in his view, because he lives in the centre of London—perhaps somewhere that is not exactly under a glide path. He should spend a night at Richmond, Kew, or Barnes, where he will get very little sleep, and he will get very little pleasure during the day, if he sits in a deck chair in a garden in my constituency and sips a gin and tonic.

Mr. Rankin: In addition to all those places I have been to Feltham and Datchet, and every one of the little villages round London Airport, to test for myself the extent of the noise.

Mr. Royle: My invitation remains open in spite of that. I should love to entertain the hon. Member in my constituency, not only with sustenance for his internal enjoyment but also with the noise from the aircraft above.
I wish the Clause a fair wind. It is an excellent one, and I congratulate my hon. Friend for bringing it forward and the Government for accepting it.

Mr. Holland: Unlike most hon. Members who have spoken I have no points to raise concerning noise, but I am rather concerned about the sort of consultative machinery that the Minister has in mind.

In Committee, we were a little vague, and rightly so, about the nature of the machinery which should be set up. We talked in very general terms about consultation and the facilities for it, but did not go so far as the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) who spoke about a formal committee, perhaps with trade union representation, or as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), who also spoke in terms of formal machinery, perhaps with consultative bodies. We are concerned more with channels of communication for people whose interests may be affected than with formalised machinery to meet regularly and consult, whether or not there are particular matters to be considered.
My reason for asking about the nature of the consultation and the consultative body which the Minister may have in mind, is that, unlike most hon. Members, I have not one airfield in my constituency or near it, but two, and of entirely different kinds. There is a private airfield managed by a private company for club flying, with an air taxi service, which has rather different connotations from the Airports Authority type of airport, with jets. But, just outside the constituency, is the Nottingham Municipal Airport, which effects my constituency.
These are entirely different types of airfield with different management, and clearly the same machinery would not apply to both. So what we want from the Minister is not a specific, clearly defined body which will have a statutory obligation towards everyone, no matter what kind of airfield is involved, but a sort of maximum and minimum requirement facility. I do not know if this is what the Minister proposes, but I hope that he will tell us his thinking. A minimum requirement would be very simple, probably in the form of a channel of communication. The maximum requirement may be much more sophisticated, as would be needed, for instance, for Luton Airport.
But we need some guidance on this point, because this is our last opportunity before the Bill becomes law. Although this was less important when we raised it in Committee, it is important now to know what it is in the Minister's mind and to have some idea of the variations in facilities which should be available for


the different types of airfield and management.

12.23 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: Mr. Speaker, I should explain that I am a retired aviator— indeed I think that I am the only Member of this House who has bombed the Equator, without I hasten to add doing any injury to it. I am also interested, both financially and by temperament, in the manufacture of aircraft engines. I am anxious for the progress of aviation with the immense benefits which it brings to this country, not only through the aircraft industry itself, but through all the industries which are drawn up alongside it. The House might therefore think that both my interests and my inclinations would lead me to oppose the Clause, but in fact I support it.
It provides for those who run aerodromes to consult those who live nearby. Although "consultation" is very much a depreciated word, and nowadays often means little more than an opportunity to let off steam or, worse, prior notice of a decision already taken, the Clause is nevertheless a welcome if halting step forward, because it is a step away from the old-fashioned attitudes which so damage the cause of aviation.
Consultations under the Clause will be largely, but of course not exclusively, about noise. Our attitude to noise and particularly aircraft noise is old-fashioned. It is the same as the attitude of the Middle Ages to smells. This has been vividly illustrated today by hon. Members saying that they have got rid of the smell in their constituency, followed by other hon. Members saying, "But the smell has arrived in mine." Our descendants will think that our attitude to noise is just as extraordinary as we now think that the attitude of the Middle Ages was to smells. Indeed, noise, like smells, is a form of atmospheric pollution—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is becoming a philosophic discussion on noise; we must keep to the Clause.

Mr. Smith: I know how strict you are, Mr. Speaker, but my point is this. Of course we can put up with noise, but should we? We can put up with

smells, and disease, which noise may well cause—and with cruelty and slavery—but we do not. Should we put up with noise? A growing number of people do not put up with it and in my view—and this morning's speeches show this—noise is becoming an electoral issue.
This Clause is a first step towards a modern approach to the problem. It is noise which holds back flying. Many people, like myself, are strongly in favour of flying but strongly against noise. The Clause, by enforcing consultation, will encourage the flying world to do more about noise, and moreover will encourage action about noise in just that part of the flying world where least is done about it but where most could be done.
The Clause does not relate to aerodromes managed by the British Airports Authority. On those large aerodromes, noise from large aircraft is a very difficult problem which is being seriously tackled. This Clause will relate to smaller aircraft and smaller aerodromes, where too little is done about noise; where something could be done about it; but where the flying world is apt to use the size and difficulties of the noise problem at national airports as an excuse for inaction at their own airports. We heard this morning the excuse, which I detest on all subjects, that evil A is tolerable because it is less bad than evil B. By helping to divide the noise problem into an intractable part which is being tackled, and a tractable part which can and should be tackled, but is not being tackled properly, the Clause is welcome.
I say again, it will help flying, and particularly smaller aircraft. Noise is the self-inflicted wound of light aviation. Many aircraft can be silenced but are not, and turn the friends of flying into its enemies. By enforcing consultation, the Clauses will help to wean the flying world from other old-fashioned attitudes which do so much harm to the cause of flying. It begins to get us away from the idea that everything must yield to the flier, just as everything yielded to the 19th Century fox hunter—the idea that there is something inherently noble about flying and that simply to take to the air is to become a knight of the air and in some way to help the country.
But the days of Linbergh and Amy Johnson are, unfortunately long past.


Far from being a knight of the air, many a flier is regarded by the earthbound public beneath him as simply a road hog with his wheels off the ground. The ability to fly a small aircraft is exactly as useful to the country—no more and no less—as the ability to ride a horse. It is a sign of mildly adventurous temperament, which is to be encouraged, but which should not be given total priority. The Clause is a recognition of that.
I hope that the Clause will make people ask why on earth, for example, small aircraft should be exempted from the law of nuisance as they are. If you, Mr. Speaker, were to drive an unsilenced, supercharged Bugatti to and fro past my door, I could sue you for nuisance; but if you affix wings and drive it to and fro over my head, I am powerless.
12.30 p.m.
I hope that the Clause will make people ask why lorries, buses and cars should now, very recently, be limited by law as to the amount of noise that they may make; but small aircraft are not. By law, a taxi must be effectively silenced; an air taxi need not be. There is very little difference nowadays between the two vehicles, either in the interior appearance, the mode of use or the way one dresses up to use them. They are entirely comparable vehicles. To treat them in any other way is absurdly old-fashioned.
I hope that the consultations under the Clause will make people address themselves to the problem of selfishness. Because of the noise—only because of the noise—flying for pleasure is the most selfish of all pleasures. It is a pleasure which can be obtained only at the direct price of destroying other people's pleasure on the ground.
It is because we have not paid enough attention to these matters that flying is so bitterly opposed by those to whom it is such a dreadful, and unnecessary, nuisance. By encouraging fliers to put their house in order, the Clause could be a great help to them as well as to local residents, in exactly the same way that trade union pressure through the years has, possibly, been regarded by some employers as a dreadful nuisance, but has nevertheless contributed enormously to the progress of their own industries.
I want to see a flourishing aircraft industry, including a flourishing light aircraft industry and, most particularly, a flourishing aircraft engine industry. It can best flourish with the good will rather than the hostility of the public. Therefore, I earnestly support and commend the Clause to the House.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: There has been considerable concentration on noise, and with very good reason. The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) intimated that he might save some of his remarks until we reach Clause 18, but under our procedure we might not discuss Clause 18. It is, therefore, important to thrash out the objectives of the Clause now.
There are two aspects on which I should like to comment. To date, most of the flying referred to in the debate, except for what I call joy-ride or light aircraft flying, has, by implication, been concerned with either scheduled or charter flights. There is another type of flying which is absolutely necessary but which probably causes greater nuisance than any other type of flying to people living around an airport—that is, training flights.
Very often the aircraft merely does circuits and bumps. It uses take-off or climb power for a large part of its flying time. We all realise that it is necessary, but it is not as necessary to do it in thickly inhabited areas as might sometimes be thought. Before introducing the Boeing 707, instead of submitting people living round London Airport to all this inconvenience, B.O.A.C. very wisely arranged to use a former Royal Air Force airfield in Cornwall so that the number of people annoyed by it were very much fewer. That was entirely commendable. One wonders, however, how many other airlines take the trouble to do that sort of thing. If there is sufficient protest about unnecessary training flights, airlines might at least be persuaded, even if it costs a little more money, to think whether they could not do their training elsewhere.
Obviously, a certain amount of practice take-off and landing must be done before scheduled services commence at any airport, but the kind of arrangement to which I have referred is not always made unless there is an organised


channel of local protest. To have an organised channel, which is what the new Clause suggests, is much more convenient to everybody, including the airport authority and the airlines, than having disorganised channels, which is the alternative.
I expect that most hon. Members who are present will still be familiar with the Wilson Report on aircraft noise, which was a truly memorable step. However much effort was put into defining the degree of annoyance which noise causes, no satisfactory parameter has yet been established. One can talk about decibels and phons, but at the end of the day one comes back to Bonzo, who, when asked, "What noise annoys an oyster most", replied "A noisy noise annoys an oyster most".
Noise, irritation and even psychotic or neurotic responses to noises are subjective. If, for example, a nursing home or an old people's home is closely adjacent to an airport, there are, naturally, considerations which should weigh and which might not otherwise need to be weighed.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to be discussing Clause 18, which he, quite rightly, said that we could not discuss. We are talking about whether there should be consultative committees. Noise may be one of the factors about which they may consult.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Yes indeed, Mr. Speaker. The channel along which my thought was flowing, although it had not quite arrived at its destination, was that bodies of this kind should have a formal method of drawing to the attention of aerodrome authorities their anticipation as well as their experience.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: May I commend to the hon. Member's consideration a new index called "The Index of Community Nuisance", the details of which were given in Flight Engineering some time ago, which is of considerable interest in the question of measuring the amount of nuisance from noise over the whole community?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That is entirely true. That index is an attempt to establish an objective parameter. If I recollect correctly, it includes a quantum of the number of people affected. I was allud-

ing to the effect on an individual person, which is quite unconnected with the number of other people who are also annoyed.
I do not think that we can do very much better than establish, as the Clause sets out to do, a channel for complaint and then cane the responsible Minister, of whichever party he may be at any given time, if, having established a vehicle for complaint and having endowed the Minister with powers, the Bill is simply allowed to pass off as one more piece of formal apparatus which is not used for the purpose for which the House wrote it into the legislation.
With those brief observations, I warmly welcome the new Clause.

Sir Eric Errington: I feel like tail-end Charlie in this debate, but I believe that I have something to contribute as I have had great experience of dealing with aircraft and airfield complaints. I suppose that the question would not apply to the major airfields, with which the new Clause does not deal.
There have been a great number of speeches from my hon. Friends about the question of noise. Of course noise is an important factor, but it is not by any means the most important. I have files three feet high containing reports of discussions following complaints about the activities at a small airfield in my constituency. These complaints are of a varied type and on the various occasions when I have had an opportunity to both write to and speak with officials of the Ministry, considerable difficulties have arisen, which would not have done so if the local body visualised in this Clause had been in existence.
I have been astonished to discover that if a licence is granted for a field to be used for aircraft purposes, there is at present no really effective control exercisable by the civil aviation authorities. I therefore strongly support the new Clause because it will provide an opportunity to canalise the complaints that are invariably made about the use of airfields.
In the case I have in mind the matter was fortunately resolved as a result of the determination of Hampshire County Council to buy the land on which the airfield was situated. However, the difficulties were myriad. There was considerable dispute over the question of exactly


what land comprised the airfield. These difficulties were accentuated by the problems surrounding common land. Not only the parish council but the rural district council endeavoured to move on these matters, but only when the Hampshire County Council decided to buy the land was the matter resolved. Had the sort of consultative body suggested in the new Clause existed at that time, there would probably have been little difficulty in convincing the civil aviation authorities that something should be done.
Another example of difficulty is presented by those who practise parachuting. Constituents of mine had the privilege of parachutists landing in their back gardens instead of the airfield. We could not discover who was to blame and we could not get any satisfaction in the matter. The sort of consultative arrangement proposed in the new Clause will be of material help in such cases.
Similar difficulties are raised by the problem of buildings close to airfields though not necessarily in the glide path. Many people feel that a greater demand than is necessary is made for the approach and take-off lines. We appreciate that these lines must be clearly but limitedly defined, but greater attention must be paid to this and other matters. For all these reasons —and not merely because of the noise difficulty, although I appreciate that it is considerable—it will be invaluable to have the sort of organisation proposed in the new Clause.
12.45 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) spoke of the problem of training, particularly in areas which are becoming built up. I agree with him, and there should certainly be an effective arrangement whereby the times when aircraft may practice are laid down. When I approached the civil aviation authorities on these matters it was impossible for them to reach any decisions because of the difficulty of proof. I mention this in view of the remarks of an hon. Member earlier about it being easy for one to bring an action for nuisance if, for example, a Bugatti was driven past one's door at great speed and with much noise. The contrary is actually the case because it is not easy to succeed with a private action for

nuisance, as it is an extremely technical matter.
When I called the attention of the Ministry to the question of low flying aircraft, I was told to complain to the police. What is the use of doing that when one must identify the aircraft? Arrangements should be made for matters such as this to be resolved. The provisions governing small airfields are in a chaotic condition and the sooner this state of affairs is put right, the better. That is why I strongly support the new Clause.

Mr. Russell Kerr: As a former Air Force flyer, though not a tail-end Charlie—I cannot claim, like the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith), to have bombed the equator, although I have done some bombing—I hope that I will not be disqualified from making a brief contribution to the debate.
First, however, I offer my congratulations to the Minister of State on his appointment and warmly welcome him to the aviation club which, as is well known, embraces both sides of the House. I assure him that there is no more impressive, hard-working, progressive and Godfearing a body of men and that it is nice to have him among us.
I came here this morning not to speak but only to listen. I have been persuaded into action, however, by two remarks, one made from this side and the other from the benches opposite. The first was made by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) who seemed to strike a complacent note, almost shrugging his shoulders over the treatment to which those living beneath glide paths are subjected during any 24 hours.

Mr. Burden: That is not true. I had intended to point out—I would have been out of order had I done so—that greater efforts are being made to reduce noise and that new aircraft will be less than half as noisy as present ones.

Mr. Kerr: I concur entirely with the hon. Gentleman's last observations and as long as he assures me that he was not yielding to complacency, I am happy to accept his intervention.
The second observation was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) who said, in effect, that people in Feltham, my constituency,


were virtually immune from this nuisance. I assure my hon. Friend that although it is true that the nuisance is unequally distributed, which is inevitable because the glide paths run in various directions in my constituency, many thousands of people in and around Feltham—notably in Cranford, Heston, West and Hounslow, West—regard this question of aircraft noise as the scourge of their lives.
I shall not delay the House further, save to refer to what Professor Richards said to me a year or two back. Professor Richards, of the Institute of Noise and Vibration at Southampton, is by common consent the top expert in this country on matters of noise and noise control. He told me that there were probably about 10 per cent. of people affected by aircraft noise who suffered from it in a strictly medical sense. This is not merely a question of nuisance but of possible severe psychological or psychiatric damage being caused by the perpetuation of the noise nuisance.
I warmly welcome the new Clause. In so far as it indicates a willingness on the part of the Ministry to seek the cooperation of all sorts of representative bodies—I hope that that is the intention —the Government are to be commended for showing a measure of understanding of this very real problem.

Mr. Corfield: We have had an interesting and remarkably full debate on the subject of noise. I do not wish to add greatly to it at this moment, though I join in the welcome to our deliberations which has been extended to the Minister and congratulate him on his appointment.
I thought that it might be helpful at this point if someone referred to the Amendment which we are discussing at the same time. The hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) was generous enough to give credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) for the initiative behind the new Clause and, more generally, to the Opposition for our Amendment (a), but neither he nor my hon. Friend referred to what it was all about. A brief word on the subject might not be out of place now.
I do not object to the usual riposte of Governments to Oppositions when

they tell us that we cannot draft Amendments because we have not been advised by the draftsman—it seems to be the tightest trade union in the world—but we are delighted that the Minister has accepted the spirit of our Amendment. The principle of it is simple. An Order imposing a duty on aerodrome owners to set up consultative bodies or provide facilities for consultation will create benefits and rights for the people who are thereby enabled to be consulted, and it seems to us that such rights having once been created, it would not be appropriate that they should be removed by an Order which did not come before Parliament. That is the basis of our Amendment. It is a sound principle, and I am glad that the Minister has accepted it.
As for the substance of the new Clause, it is worth re-emphasising, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said, that this can primarily be a matter only of helping to improve public relations. No one imagines that it gives a full answer to the noise problem. Nevertheless, we all welcome it as an essential step in that direction, however large or small we may each consider the step to be. I suggest that, when the Minister makes Orders under the new Clause, it might well be appropriate in certain cases to suggest, either directly or by circular, to the authorities concerned that they would be well advised to publish a report from time to time indicating the type of complaints which have been brought before the management authority and the action taken or decisions made, so that people may not only see that there is consultation in fact but also judge its effectiveness. The more publicity is given to the results of such consultations, the more likely are people to be determined that they are effective in the way they have not, as the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) suggested, been in the past.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) stressed the importance to this country of the aviation and aero-engine industries and of air transport. None of us is unaware of the immensely important contribution which those industries can make, but I should come down heavily


on the side of my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) and the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) in saying that I do not believe that the interest of the aircraft and aero-engine industries and of air transport will be served unless it runs parallel with and becomes more and more acceptable to the general public interest in this country. This is of the utmost importance, and I am convinced that it is fully realised by those engaged in the manufacturing and air transport world.
I want to see an enormous increase in the domestic use of aircraft in Britain as well as internationally. But we must not forget that even in the United States, a far more developed country from the point of view of air travel, only a small proportion of the population—about 8 per cent., I believe—ever set foot in an aircraft. The great majority of the people concerned with aeroplanes are concerned about the effect which they have on their lives on the ground. I know that the industry realises that, and I do not believe that we serve those industries well by belittling the problem of noise and its environmental effects.
I hope that we shall not overstress the substantial advances which are being made in the quieting of engines. These advances are being made and we welcome them, but what is happening is that engines are being made quieter per lb. of thrust and not necessarily per aeroplane, because aeroplanes are getting bigger. Although we may well have immense improvements in the noise level of engines of the same power, we are demanding more and more power to put bigger and bigger aeroplanes into the air. These are not, therefore, matters about which we ought for a moment to be complacent or to appear complacent.
I welcome the Clause, the Minister's acceptance of the spirit of our Amendment, and the assiduity of the hon. Member for Luton in working out in his Amendment the right form of wording.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): We have had two hours of thorough debate, with about 14 contributions from the back benches. It has all been most worth while. From my point of view—I thank those hon.

Members who have welcomed me to what I gather is the rather particular and unusual club which I have now joined— I have found this morning's debate a helpful education for me in one part of my responsibilities. If I do not have time to touch on all the points raised, I assure the House that I shall bear them all in mind and reflect upon them in the time ahead.
The new Clause deals with the question of consultation, and I shall not go wider or engage in a full discussion of all aspects of the problem of noise. It is a most important problem and one with which we must continue to deal. If there is time and opportunity on Third Reading, I may say a further word about it.
On the question of consultation, it is clear that a balance must be struck. I have no doubt that there is a real and growing social problem with wide consequences flowing from the growth of air traffic, but I am equally certain that air traffic will continue to grow, and it is desirable in economic terms as well as, indirectly, in social terms that it should. We must, therefore, find a middle course. In my view, it is possible to reconcile the need for less noise and the control of the adverse effects of the growth of air traffic with the growth of air traffic itself.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) said that the Clause was an enormous victory for the anti-noise lobby. I am happy to acknowledge his own special rôle over some time now in drawing attention to the severity of the problem, and I am prepared also to acknowledge his description of the Clause. I put it in this way. In so far as the balance was not previously right, the Clause will help to redress it. A fortnight ago, when we first discussed the Clause, the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) said that there was a real need for good public relations with the local communities. That sums it up. Without mentioning individual cases, one must concede that sometimes in the past public relations were not as good as they ought to be, sometimes airport operators did not explain what they were trying to do or the problems with which they were dealing, and sometimes they were reluctant to give an ear to those who complained.
I was interested in the view of the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) of the success of consultation at Gatwick. This is a very reassuring precedent. Although I cannot say that under the Clause there will be no conflict, everyone will be satisfied and Members of Parliament will not be troubled by letters—because they will, and no one is ever satisfied—once the Clause is through and the Bill becomes law so that airfields are designated, we shall have a much better chance of living together with this problem than in the past.
1.0 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. R. C. Mitchell), who a fortnight ago pioneered the discussion which we have had today by making typically shrewd comments on the contents of the Clause, asked three questions. In answering them, I shall take up some of the points made this morning. My hon. Friend asked whether the method of consultation would, for example, include bringing in residents' associations of one kind or another. I think that was in the minds of other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie). The answer is of course, yes. Without wishing to lay down the form which consultation will take, I do not hold the view in this case or any other than the only legitimate expressions of public opinion can come from elected authorities. Often a voluntary group of people, a protest movement as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, can represent something of consequence and should be listened to. So I would not exclude residents' associations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, also asked what were adequate facilities for consultation. The hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland), who took up this point this morning, helped me in answering when he referred to maximum and minimum facilities. He made the point that it may be necessary to have machinery, but it should be machinery tailored for the purpose, neither more nor less. That is absolutely right because we do not want a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Although I am not prepared to say whether this will prove to be the case, it may often be that formal consultative

machinery will be required. A committee which may serve that purpose, but on other occasions some other form of machinery, perhaps of a more informal kind, will meet the bill. We have to see how things go and to recognise that different circumstances may require a rather different response.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton asked who at the end of the day would decide whether the facilities for consultation were adequate. In all this we must recognise that common sense must prevail and there will be give-and-take in discussion with all sorts of people. Although the machinery cannot satisfy everyone in each case, I hope that it will go a long way towards doing so, but at the end of the day it will be for the courts to decide whether the form of consultation is adequate or not. My hon. Friend also raised the question of the possibility of trade unions being involved in consultation about whether facilities were adequate, what form they took, how frequently they operated, and who was involved in the whole process.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hemp-stead (Mr. Allason), who apologised for not being able to be present now, raised an important point. As he made it well, I do not think I need take it much further. He made a point which gets to the root of the new Clause and consultation when he quite rightly said that Luton Airport is the responsibility of Luton Corporation whereas the local authorities in his area have no say in the management of that airport. He was making the case, as I think he intended, for this Clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, also asked what consultation would be on. I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) to say that there would be a danger if consultative committees became responsible for supervision. Of course these committees can discuss a wide range of questions, certainly flight paths and new runways, because they would have a bearing on amenity in all its aspects. Again, we must ask for common sense in consultation because consultative committees cannot manage airports however wide their powers for consultation will be. I hope we shall find a middle, reasonable


course in which those who have responsibility for management manage but those who are consulted are listened to.

Mr. Rankin: If I follow my hon. Friend correctly, he is saying that these consultative committees will have some say in laying down runways—the direction and so on—which is sometimes challenged, and is now being challenged at Abbotsinch. If that function is recognised, is there not a danger that they will always try to employ it and therefore impinge on management?

Mr. Rodgers: There is always the danger that they may assume responsibilities which they do not have. The management must lie with those who control the airport, but that does not preclude those who are consulted from expressing views on a wide range of subjects. I have never believed that there is one only one way of running things—that those who have the power should exercise it. Most of us listen and learn. An operator will find life a great deal more congenial in every way if the decisions he makes are decisions which take full cognizance of the views of others in the locality, which I interpret as a very wide area indeed in present circumstances.
I cannot say this morning which airports may in due course be designated. It is better to say that we exclude none but will include none before we have considered it fully. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), in a very moderate, constructive and helpful speech, made the point well when he again drew attention to the need to devise machinery which was reasonable and sensible. He said that we might find where facilities were required even in the case of airfields used for club flying which could not be excluded although they would be rather different from airfields where there is a growing volume of jet traffic.
I hope that I have covered the majority of points that have been made. If there are others which I have not fully dealt with, I shall take note of them. I commend the new Clause to the House. As the House understands, I cannot accept the Amendment in the name of the Opposition, but my hon. Friend the Member for Luton has put forward an Amendment which embodies the spirit which I shall be happy to accept.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendment made to the proposed new Clause: In subsection (3), at the end add:
'but any order varying or revoking a previous order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.—[Mr. Howie.]

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

Clause 1

CONTROL OF ROAD TRAFFIC AT BOARD OF TRADE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY AERODROMES

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 20, leave out 'special'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): With this Amendment we can discuss Amendment No. 2, in page 2. line 23, leave out 'special'.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: An interesting point of principle is involved. In 1949 a previous Administration got a bit sloppy in drafting their legislation. I suspect that this is all that happened. Section 37 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949 at some stages uses the phrase "special constables" and at other stages refers to "constable". Subsection (1) reads:
Any two justices of the peace may appoint such persons as may be nominated for the purpose by the Minister to be special constables on any premises for the time being vested in the Minister or under his control.
Subsection (2) says:
Every person so appointed shall be sworn in by the justices duly to execute the office of a constable on the premises aforesaid, and when so sworn in shall, on those premises, have the power and privileges and be liable to the duties and responsibilities of a constable.
A point of principle is involved, because a special constable, as the expression is known to the public and, I hope, to us, is a member of the community who voluntarily gives his services to the community to assist the police in the office of special constable. It is an utter prostitution of the special constabulary that this term should also be applied to people who, by the nature of their employment —for instance, by an airport authority — are required by their employer to be sworn in with the powers of a constable. To confuse somebody, part of whose job is to exercise police powers, with somebody who voluntarily gives his services to


the community is an abuse which we should not perpetuate. It crept into the 1949 Act. Fortunately, the phrase does not appear in Section 10 of the Airports Authority Act, 1965; only the word "constable" appears; there is no reference to special constabulary. It is apparent that by then this had been picked up. It is, therefore, a pity that it reappears in the Bill.
I have discussed this with a number of police officers from the rank of constable up to the rank of chief constable. Everyone with whom I have discussed it has taken the same view as I do, that it is thoroughly undesirable to apply the term "special constable" to somebody who is a form of constable other than a regular police constable, merely for the want of a better phrase. There are a number of other types of constable. There are the British Transport Police and Her Majesty's Dockyard Police, all of whom are constables, but they are not special constables. There are also the Airports Authority police, set up under Section 10 of the 1965 Act.
We are concerned now specifically with lines 20 and 23 on page 2. I am glad that the Minister of State signed our Amendment—that in page 2, line 23— after we had tabled it. For that reason, his name appears at the head of those sponsoring the Amendment on the Notice Paper. It is not the case, as somebody looking at the Notice Paper for the first time might think, that we have signed the Minister's Amendment. I understand that this is a not unusual practice when a Minister adds his name to an Opposition Amendment, but it is worth mentioning this for the record.
I can only presume that the reason why the hon. Gentleman did not add his name to Amendment No. 1 is that line 20 refers to Section 37 of the 1949 Act, which sometimes uses the expression, "special constables" and sometimes refers to "constable". Perhaps the Minister wants to have a final fling at the word "constable" by leaving it in there and quite properly deleting it later. If this is the reason why he added his name to Amendment No. 2 but not to Amendment No. 1, this is something which we can quite happily let pass, because line 20 refers to the provisions of the offending Act passed

by a previous Administration of his own political complexion, whereas line 23 has more to do with future appointments where this error is not perpetrated.
With those introductory remarks, I commend these Amendments to the House. They should be agreed to so as to avoid unnecessary offence to the body of men and women who give their service voluntarily to the community.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. Burden: Under the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, it is clear that these constables are special only in that they are engaged in duties connected with airports. They have duties which extend far beyond those of the ordinary special constable and the privileges and powers pertaining to those of the ordinary constable. I ask the Minister of State to give this matter his favourable consideration.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) said this:
On the point about special constables, these are not special constables in the ordinary sense but are part of a regular force which the airport authorities are entitled to maintain." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 16th May, 1968; c. 9.]
That puts it succinctly and explains why we wish to have "special constable" removed. It would be very desirable if a designation such as "airport police" could be applied so as to make it clear what their duties and terms of employment are.

Mr. William Rodgers: Just to get the facts correct, it was the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and his colleagues who added their names to my Amendment, but I do not think that we need to enter into any dispute about this matter. In Committee there was thorough discussion of this point and the point was well taken.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: When I received the Notice Paper the only Amendments on this subject were the two signed by my hon. Friends and I. Subsequently, the Minister's name appeared on our Amendment. I inquired at the Table Office as to how this had come about and was informed that the Minister of State had subsequently added his name to our Amendment and that it was customary when this happened for the


Minister's name to appear at the top of the list of sponsors.

Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that this is a point worth disputing. I think that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. We can resolve this afterwards. The Amendment was tabled because of the discussion in Committee, to which my predecessor was anxious to respond. I have sought to follow this through. I do not think that there can be any dispute about that Amendment.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is a question of fact.

Mr. Rodgers: On Amendment No. 1, there is a difference which the hon. Gentleman understands. He says that the phrase "special constables" crept into the 1949 Act. I would not wish to dispute that. It might well be that, if we were passing that Act today, we would not include the phrase "special constables".
But as long as the term "special constables" is there in the Act we can do no more in this Bill than reproduce the phrase. While recognising the spirit of Amendment No. 1, I must therefore ask the House to reject it.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 2 in page 2, line 23, leave out 'special'.—[Mr. Rodgers.]

Clause 2

BYELAWS AT BOARD OF TRADE AERODROMES

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 28, at end insert:
Provided that where any such representations are made—

(a) by any person regularly operating aircraft into or out of any aerodrome to which this section applies and such representations relate to the provisions of any byelaw relating to any of the matters mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section; or
(b) by any chief officer of police (including any chief officer of the constabulary of the aerodrome concerned) and such representations relate to the provision of any byelaw relating to any of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) or (g) of subsection (1) of this section; or

(c) by any local planning authority and such representations relate to the provisions of any byelaw relating to any of the matters metioned in paragraphs (e), (g) or (i) of subsection (1) of this section; or
(d) by any local authority and such representations relate to the provisions of any byelaw relating to any matter mentioned in paragraph (i)of subsection (1) of this section.

The Board shall before making any byelaws to which such representations relate afford to any such person, chief officer of police, local planning authority or local authority, as the case may be, the opportunity of being heard by an officer appointed by the President of the Board of Trade for that purpose.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss the following three Amendments, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire South (Mr. Corfield) No. 4, in page 4, line 11, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
(2) Byelaws made under this section shall not have effect until they are confirmed by the Board and the provisions of Schedule 6 to the Airports Authority Act 1965 (which govern the making and conon of byelaws by the Authority) shall apply also, subject to any necessary modifications, to byelaws made under this section.
No. 5, in line 12 at end insert:
'and subsection (3) of section 2 of this Act shall apply to the confirmation of byelaws by the Board under this section as it applies to the making of byelaws under section 2 of this Act aforesaid'.
No. 32, in line 38, leave out from 'Board' to end of line 42 and insert:
'and subsection (3) of section 2 of this Act shall apply to the confirmation of byelaws by the Board under this section as it applies to the making of byelaws under section 2 of this Act aforesaid'.

Mr. Corfield: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not think that No. 4, No. 5 and No. 32 have very much to do with No. 3, but of course I will consider them together if that is your wish.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr Speaker has indicated that they can go together if any hon. Member desires to discuss them with No. 3.

Mr. Corfield: I think that it would be more convenient to take No. 4, No. 5 and No. 32 together but separately from No. 3.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: They cannot be taken separately now. If anyone wants to refer to them on Amendment No. 3,


he can do so but they cannot be called separately now.

Mr. Corfield: No. 3 deals with a different point. The House will observe that Clause 2(3) provides that, where the Board of Trade is making byelaws in respect of an aerodrome which it controls, it shall provide an opportunity for representations to be made and shall only finally make the byelaws when it has taken those representations into account. It seems to us that, where the byelaws affect persons or bodies with particular knowledge or responsibilities in relation to their subject matter, it is important that those persons should not only be able to make representations but that the decision of the Board of Trade should be seen to be taken on the merits as deployed by those who hold such responsibilities.
This can only bin cases where the Board of Tra inclined to dismiss representations, it the persons concerned are given the opportunity of appearing before someone appointed by the President of the Board of Trade for the purpose of deploying the arguments, bearing in mind that it is not always easy—sometimes impossible—fully to deploy arguments in respect of representations if one does not know the grounds on which it is proposed to dismiss those representations or objections, whatever one may call them.
The purpose of Amendment No. 3, therefore, is to ensure that people with special responsibilities have the right to appear before a person appointed by the President of the Board of Trade to argue their case when they are dissatisfied with the proposed byelaws. Subparagraph (a) of the Amendment deals with the operation of aircraft. Anyone operating aircraft from the aerodrome concerned would have the right to make his case orally if the Board of Trade was disposed to dismiss a written representation. Sub-paragraph (b) deals with matters which are particularly the responsibility of either the chief constable of the district or the chief of the constables appointed by the Airports Authority. This covers the prevention of obstruction within the aerodrome, the control of vehicular traffic, the control of waiting by hackney carriages, the preservation of order within the aerodrome and the prevention of

damage to property and the regulation or restriction of advertising within, the aerodrome.
Subparagraph (c) deals with matters which seem to us to be particularly within the interests and, indeed, within the powers of local planning authorities. It is surely right that, if a byelaw will affect matters on which the local planning authority has strong views, it should have the right to argue its case. The same applies to subparagraph (d), which is to restrict areas constituted as aerodromes for the purposes of byelaws. Again this is a matter on which the local authority might have views which it would be important for it to make known.
The procedure we propose would have the great advantage that it would be seen beyond doubt that the President of the Board of Trade, in making the byelaws had taken account of the arguments put for by people with particular responties for carrying them out. This w be a major advantage to those concerned and also to this House in the sense that it would enable proper Parliamentary control to be exercised.
I am afraid that Amendments No. 4, No. 5 and No. 32 constitute a wholly different argument, and I must refer back to subsection (3) of Clause 2. As I have pointed out, the Board of Trade, when making byelaws in respect of aerodromes which it controls, is obliged to afford an opportunity for representations to be made and to consider those representations before finally making the byelaws. In Clause 3, a similar set of powers is conferred upon the local authorities which own aerodromes. In their case, the confirming authority for byelaws is to be the Board of Trade. But there is no provision for a local authority to give an opportunity to people to make representations to it about its proposed byelaws, let alone any enjoining on the Board of Trade to take these representations into account before confirming those byelaws.
In Clause 4, the Board of Trade may designate an aerodrome run by a private operator, and once there has been such designation the owner can make byelaws. Once again the confirming authority is to be the Board of Trade. This time, however,
Byelaws made under this section shall not have effect until they are confirmed by


the Board, and the provisions of Schedule 3 to the Airports Authority Act 1965 … shall apply also, subject to any necessary modifications …
But Schedule 3 only requires that there shall be notice of the proposal to make the byelaws and a notice indicating where that notice and maps can be inspected. There is no provision in it for the making of representations, let alone for their being taken into account before the byelaws are confirmed. It would be sensible, therefore, to have a common requirement throughout Clauses 2, 3 and 4 in relation to the making and confirmation of bye-laws, and we suggest, first, that we should import the terms of Clause 2(3) into Clause 3 and 4 instead of the existing subsections (2) of Clauses 3 and 4. That is the purpose of Amendments No. 5 and 32. Amendment No. 4, on the other hand, produces uniformity in a different way by importing into Clause 3 the necessity of complying with the provisions of Schedule 3 of the Airports Act, 1965, thereby obtaining uniformity of Clauses 3 and 4, where the Board of Trade is purely a confirming authority, but leaving a slightly different approach in Clause 2(3) where the Board of Trade is not only a confirming authority but a making authority. It seemed to us that it would be simpler and more sensible to have a uniform approach.
1.30 p.m.
I stress that it is odd that where the President of the Board of Trade, who is directly answerable to the House, makes byelaws in respect of airports under his control and is therefore subject to question and answer in this House, there is a tighter requirement than where he is confirming byelaws made by private individuals and local authorities. It does not make much sense, and even at this late stage I think it would be right to change the drafting of the Bill so as to introduce uniformity, at any rate into Clauses 3 and 4, and preferably into Clauses 2, 3 and 4.

Mr. A. Royle: I rise to speak briefly in support of my hon. Friend and to raise one particular aspect of the Amendment and of the Clause.
I do not know whether the Minister of State, since he has not been in his present position for long, is aware of the scandalous situation now obtaining

at London Airport in the hiring of taxis. I am anxious that the situation which arises at London Airport today should not arise at any other Board of Trade or local authority aerodrome. Paragraph (b) of the Amendment provides for control:
 (b) by any chief officer of police (including any chief officer of the constabulary of the aerodrome concerned) and such representations relate to the provision of any byelaw relating to any of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) or (g) of subsection (1) of this section;
Clause 2(1) of the Bill provides in paragraph (d):
for prohibiting waiting by hackney carriages except at standings appointed by such person as may be specified in the byelaws;
This refers to the standing and waiting of hackney carriages at any airport which will come under the control of the Board of Trade. The situation at London Airport is so grave and so scandalous that I would like an assurance from the Minister that this provision will empower him to deal with hackney carriages in other aerodromes in such a way that the situation now obtaining at Heathrow will not obtain elsewhere.
I will briefly give the Minister of State an example of what I mean. On Sunday night I returned with a friend on a flight from the Continent to London Airport, and I left the airport building in order to obtain a taxi to convey me to London. On leaving the airport building accompanied by a porter carrying my baggage, I was surrounded by a mob—there is no other word for it—of taxi drivers who were shouting, remonstrating, pushing and jostling amongst themselves in order to obtain my fare to London. The baggage was taken from the hands of the porter and was put into a taxi. The driver inquired my destination in central London. I told the driver that I wished to go to an address in Chelsea and an address near Oxford Street in order to drop my friend. He said that the charge for the trip would be £4. I remonstrated with him, as this seemed to be an absurd amount. However, he insisted, and I allowed him to put my bag in his cab. No sooner had I sat down in the cab when altercations started between him and other taxi-drivers in the vicinity who apparently wanted to take me to London. This was finally concluded and the driver opened


the door of my cab to ask me whether I wished to go first to Chelsea or to Oxford Street. I told him I wished to go first to Oxford Street, and he said, "That will be an extra 10s. on your fare". I was then faced with getting out of the cab, removing my baggage and starting an altercation with another driver and embarking on a major negotiation to get myself to London.
We set off and went first to Oxford Street and then to Cadogan Place in Chelsea, where I was finally dropped by the taxi-driver. The amount showing on the clock at the end of the journey was 39s. 6d. In the dispute that had taken place at the airport my porter had not been tipped and the driver informed me that he would subtract 5s. from my total fare to tip the porter. The net cost of my trip, according to the driver, was therefore £4 5s. for a journey that should have cost 39s. 6d. I am aware that under the byelaws of the Metropolitan area a driver is entitled to negotiate a fare outside a six-mile limit, and that is why I paid the fare as requested, but this scandalous state of affairs could follow in other parts of the country in other aerodromes which might be run by the Board of Trade.
Whilst I found the incident annoying enough, and indeed I have sent the details, including the number of the driver and his licence number to the Home Secretary, what can foreigners coming into the country think when this sort of incident occurs on their arrival at Heathrow? I am an Englishman and have some knowledge of the currency used in this country, but what can foreigners who do not understand the currency think when they are greeted by these extraordinary mob tactics by tough and angry drivers right outside the airport buildings, with the constables at London Airport apparently totally unable to control the situation? On the occasion of which I was speaking there were several policemen walking past who did not in any way try to get order into the taxi rank or amongst the drivers who were jostling and pushing for fares.
I know that this subject has been raised in the House many times, but it seems to me that the time has come for action to be taken, either by the Home Office or by the Minister's Department, to deal with

the situation at London Airport. Whilst I realise that he may not be able to give an answer today, I hope that now I have given him a first-hand example of the scandalous situation which now obtains at London Airport outside the European Building at Heathrow, he will take action to deal with it.
I am most anxious that he should give us an assurance today that chief constables and officers responsible in other airports in the country will have the powers, which apparently they do not have at the moment at Heathrow, to enable them to stop this sort of behaviour. I apologise to the Minister of State if I am not here during the whole of his reply, but I have to leave, and I would be most grateful if he would look into this for me.

Mr. William Rodgers: I am fully aware of what the hon. Gentleman has described as the scandalous state of affairs about taxis at London Airport at the present time. I regard it as disgraceful and damaging to the country in a number of ways. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is seeking to take the necessary steps which I hope in due course will remedy the situation.
The hon. Gentleman was more temperate in his behaviour than I would have been. I have always regarded him as a fairly tough customer, but perhaps his proper sense of responsibility and his desire to draw the matter to the attention of Ministers led him on this occasion to be less determined than I would have been in a similar situation; I would have been greatly provoked. I take note of what he says, and I can assure the House that those responsible will ensure that never again will a comparable situation arise in any other airport in the country. I am grateful to him for drawing attention once again to the situation, though I am sure that many visitors to this country will know that there are other ways of getting to Central London than by taxi, and the attractions of being here are very much greater than such inconvenience as is caused in the way that he suggests.
I was also grateful to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) for the very reasonable way in which he explained this complicated matter. I can see his argument that some


uniformity Would seem to be necessary. But we are dealing with a situation which is anything but uniform, bearing in mind the ownership of the separate airports, and also the existing legislation to which this legislation refers from time to time.
I have been looking into the matter very closely because I have much sympathy with the Amendments in the first instance. However, I am satisfied that the Bill provides the necessary guarantees. Rather than detain the House too long, I will mention only that, on Amendment No. 3, the proposal would introduce a new principle into the byelaw-making procedure, and the principle would be extended by Amendments Nos. 5 and 32 to the confirmation of aerodrome byelaws by the Board at local authority and private airports.
Very careful consideration is given by the Board of Trade to representations which we receive in our capacity as bye-law makers or as a confirming authority, and there is nothing at present to preclude a hearing if it should be considered necessary, which is not usually the case.
Although I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not realise it, the Amendments would have the effect of subjecting the procedure of consultation to a set of formal rules which might limit the right to a hearing to a specific category of persons and authorities. It would restrict the present position and have the reverse effect to that which he has in mind.
Bearing in mind the way in which the Act will be administered and the element of consultation which must come in, though I can see why the hon. Gentleman felt it necessary to put down these Amendments and to raise the point, the Bill as it stands will meet the needs that he sees.
I ought to make the further point in advising the House to reject the Amendments that none of them could be accepted in the form in which they have been tabled.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 5

BYELAWS: PENALTIES

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 7, after 'but', insert:

'except in the case of byelaws made for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 2 of this Act'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that it will be convenient to take with this Amendment No. 8, in line 8, at end insert:
'and in the case of byelaws made for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 2 of this Act no amount so specified shall exceed £500'.

Mr. Corfield: The purpose of the Amendment is very simple. It is to express the view that, where there is a breach of a byelaw dealing with safety regulations, a maximum penalty of £25 does not seem to be adequate. The combined effect of Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 is to substitute a much higher maximum for breaches of such byelaws.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not tell me this time that the drafting is wrong. Quite honestly, I thought that his interpretation of my former Amendment was itself erroneous. However, I will not dwell on that.
I believe that these Amendments would have the effect for which they are designed, namely, to enable a much higher penalty to be imposed in cases of the breach of byelaws affecting matters of safety. This seems to us to be important.

Mr. William Rodgers: I do not think that there is any fault in drafting in this case, and certainly I would not propose the rejection of the Amendment on that ground.
It is very reasonable to draw attention to the fact that, from many points of view, £25 appears to be a low figure when we are dealing with matters of safety. However, the House will remember that the figure of £25 was approved by the Home Office and the House in the case of the British Airports Authority in 1965, and it is the figure which has appeared in private Acts since then. Though I would not argue on this or any other occasion that precedent is overwhelming, it would be unreasonable to substitute £500 for £25 when the lower figure was fixed after very proper consideration such a short time ago. It would also be unreasonable to introduce a figure of £500 that would have no bearing on the position at airports managed by the British Airports


Authority, which are not covered by the Amendment.
1.45 p.m.
We have received no evidence that increasing the penalties for contraventions of the byelaws would improve the safety of operations at aerodromes. For those reasons, I hope that the House will understand why I cannot accept £500 in place of £25.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am intrigued by the Minister's observation, which causes me to wonder what sort of evidence he could possibly receive in advance of the penalty being increased. He has not received evidence about the results of an event which has not happened. Is that surprising? The penalty has not been increased to £500, and the Minister has not received evidence of what would have happend if it had been so increased.
Is he saying that he is completely satisfied with the degree of compliance with aerodrome byelaws? That must necessarily follow from what he says. If he is happy with the £25 penalty, he is happy with the degree of compliance with aerodrome byelaws, not only now but projected. It seems to me improbable that the Minister can be so satisfied. If he is satisfied with the degree of compliance with aerodrome byelaws, a lot of this Bill is quite unnecessary, because a lot of it has to do with increasing the number of byelaws and increasing the regulation of everything going on within airports.
The Minister is a man of commendable faith but less commendable judgment if he thinks that he can multiply the regulations and controls and leave the tiny sum of £25 as the maximum penalty for breaches of byelaws which are specifically brought in to promote safety. I do not think that he has given the matter the thought that he would have wished to if he had focused his attention on it.
I hope that he will notice that these two Amendments do not affect the minimum penalty. They do not cause any unnatural burden to fall upon people who, through negligence or carelessness or because they are hard pressed and busy, happen to infringe a byelaw. All that they do is give power to the court

trying a case, if it decides that there has been a deliberate flouting of a byelaw brought in to promote safety on an airport, to impose a penalty which is much more in line with the possible consequences. The potential effect of breaking byelaws brought in to promote safety can be the extensive loss of human life and damage to aircraft involving millions of pounds. Looked at in that perspective, the proposition that £25 is a reasonable maximum and that £500 is an unreasonably high figure cannot be justified.
I ask the Minister to think again about this. When does he next expect legislation on the subject? With the £ depreciating at the rate that it has over the last few years, is he confident that in five years £25 will be an adequate maximum, even assuming that it is at the moment? Does he seriously expect the House to have to consume its time again in the next few years by increasing the maximum penalties? I doubt whether he thinks that that is a reasonable course of action.
For heavens sake let us adopt this very small maximum—£500 is still a very small maximum fine when considering the potential consequences of deliberately breaking regulations of this kind. Obviously, no reasonable magistrates' or other court would fine someone £500 for accidentally breaking the regulations, but, equally, to restrict the maximum penalty to £25 for a deliberate flouting, possibly followed by the consequences which I have endeavoured to illustrate, would result in the court finding itself with its hands tied. The Minister might find it very embarrassing to have to explain to public opinion why deliberate flouting of a regulation, resulting in loss of life, should be punished by a fine of only £25 notwithstanding that a few months previously he had been in charge of what in effect is a consolidation Measure on aviation law and had turned down this Amendment on the ground that he was satisfied that there would be compliance with existing and projected byelaws and that £500 was an unreasonable maximum— not an average or minimum—figure.
I hope that in the course of the debate on this matter, which should be fairly extensive, the Minister will find time to reconsider, because I do not


expect that, which ever party is in office next year, it will have time to legislate again on matters of general consolidation of civil aviation law for a number of years. We are consuming enough time doing it, so let us do the job properly. This is one of those comparatively minor aspects in which it is much better to be realistic than to do half a job and then have to get into the endless Ministerial queue for legislation to amend what may now seem a comparatively trivial provision which, however, unamended will hamstring the courts from imposing a reasonable penalty in the light of the possible consequences of breaking regulations of this kind which are specifically passed to promote the safety and convenience of operations by air.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 6

PROVISION OF FACILITIES BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES AT AERODROMES NOT ESTABLISHED OR MAINTAINED BY THEM

Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 13, leave out 'that section' and insert:
'section 19 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949'.
This is a drafting Amendment which the House will fully understand and which I need not explain.

Mr. Burden: Can the Minister clarify one point? Under Clause 7, it is the intention to give rural authorities the right to construct aerodromes, but Section 19(9) of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, says:
In this section the expression 'local authority' does not include the council of a rural district in England or Wales, and the expression 'land' includes any right in or over land.
I hope that by introducing this provision without removing that subsection the Minister will not hamstring the Bill from giving a rural authority power to construct an aerodrome or to deal in aerodromes.

Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that that is the effect. As I understand it, this is a minor drafting Amendment concerned only with the language of the Bill and not with any point of substance.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 30, at end insert:
Provided that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply where that other aerodrome is either owned or managed by some other local authority or is a designated aerodrome in respect of which byelaws have been made in accordance with section 4 of this Act.
This is another byelaw Amendment and it is aimed at a somewhat similar problem. It is clear from Clause 6(3) that a local authority which happens to own buildings on any aerodrome which is owned by itself, or some other local authority, or by a person subject to a designation order under Clause 4, can make byelaws in respect of those buildings on the aerodrome. In both cases, if the aerodrome is owned by another local authority, or is a designated aerodrome, it will be a byelaw-making authority for that aerodrome. On the fact of it, it seems to be introducing unnecessary confusion to have two local authorities making byelaws in respect of the same aerodrome in the one case, or, in the other case, having the person who is the manager of the designated aerodrome making byelaws for part of the aerodrome while the local authority makes them for another part. This is a thoroughly unsatisfactory way in which to go about any form of legislation.
I hope that the Minister will not reply that everything is all right in the best of all possible worlds because we are drafting by reference to other legislation and that this is how it all fits in, which is the only answer he has given on the other byelaw Amendments. This is not legislation by reference and nor is there anything in Clause 3(2) to suggest that we are referring to other legislation. Nor, as I recollect the Local Government Act, 1933, an Act with which I used to be fairly familiar, is there anything which automatically brings in the byelaw provisions of that Act when a local authority is given power to make byelaws for purposes which are not covered by that Act. Clause 3(3) expressly excludes certain provisions of the 1933 Act, but there may be some implication that the rest of the Act implicitly applies. It is not clear and I am not in the least convinced that we have these byelaw-making powers right in the Bill, or in a form in which they will be readily accepted and understood by the public.
It is a great pity that the Board of Trade has not been prepared. It has had two and a half weeks to study the Amendments to Clauses 2, 3 and 4. I do not blame the Minister, who has arrived very recently and who obviously has a brief. But at least the Board of Trade should have been able to produce something convincing and I hope that on this occasion the hon. Gentleman has something convincing on his pad. I do not profess to be the world's greatest draftsman, but I think that I do at least as well as the Board of Trade.

Mr. Burden: I hope that the Minister will respond to my hon. Friend. The Clause says in effect that a local authority shall have power to make byelaws in respect of any aerodromes owned or managed by it and shall also be given power to make byelaws in respect of so much of any other aerodromes as consists of buildings or other works provided by it. This could lead to much confusion. Perhaps the Minister can devise some words so that the authority owning the buildings on an aerodrome belonging to another authority will consult that other authority before drafting any byelaws.
At the same time, it seems to me to be quite wrong that two separate authorities should have power to make entirely different sets of byelaws for one aerodrome. If my reading of the Bill is correct, I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise that there should be some system of consultation whereby the two authorities could get together in order to avoid producing conflicting byelaws.

2.0 p.m.

Mr. William Rodgers: This, again, is an Amendment which, on the face of it, is very reasonable. I can appreciate the difficulty that might be likely to result from their being two different sets of byelaws for different parts of an aerodrome. I grasp the point, and I will not rest on the precedent of the 1933 Act.
The real difficulty—and this is a matter of judgment, and one has to come down one way or the other—is whether, on the whole, a local authority should be entitled to make byelaws relating to property within its charge or which it owns, or whether that responsibility

should rest with someone else. I think that, on the whole, it is sensible to say that if an authority has responsibilities for or possesses certain buildings or properties, or whatever it may be, it should have the power of byelaw making over them.
A conflict would be most undesirable. I can see that in the Bill as it stands it can have occurred to hon. Gentlemen that conflict might result but, generally speaking, I believe that we may assume that authorities will consult together; and that if they have this power they will not act in such a way as to bring them into conflict.
At the end there is one sure means of avoiding this happening, and I think that this is the answer to what the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) had in mind. The Board of Trade is a confirming authority, and we will certainly ensure that no overlapping takes place. There is, therefore, a provision which satisfies the spirit of an Amendment which, in any case, I cannot accept.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 5, line 34, leave out from 'aerodrome' to 'as' in line 35.
This is really a probing Amendment. The purpose of the words enclosed in the brackets is not apparent to us. To explain the matter it is necessary to go back to the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, because the present subsection (4) refers to paragraph (o) of Section 8(2) of that Act. The Act of 1949 followed the Chicago Convention with which I hope everyone present will be familiar—if they are not, the assumption that they are will save valuable time.
Section 8(2) deals with certain provisions in respect of aerodromes which may be made by Order in Council, and paragraph (o) reads:
— for regulating the charges that may be made for the use of aerodromes licensed under the Order and for services provided at such aerodromes —
Subsection (4) of the Bill reads:
Provision may be made under paragraph (o) of section 8(2) of the said Act of 1949 for regulating the charges that may be made for the use of, and for services provided at, so much of any aerodrome (whether or not licensed as mentioned in that paragraph) as


consists of buildings or other works provided as aforesaid by a local authority.
So far, in what might fairly be described as lengthy and adequate discussions, no argument has been advanced for extending the powers to non-licensed aerodromes and it is with that aspect that the Amendment deals. There may be good reasons for that omission, but it is not something that one knows intuitively. In the absence of adequate explanation, it needs to be made explicit. I think that it would be much better to provide the additional powers necessary, but to confine them as they were confined in the original enabling Act of 1949.
I do not think that we lose anything we seek to achieve by deleting the brackets and the words contained within them. Apart from anything else, once we go outside the provisions of any licensed premises—and in this connection "licensed premises" do not have the meaning they have in other contexts—the Minister may have a very great difficulty in defining in any given case the extent of the territory to which regulation of charges apply. If the airport is licensed, there is a proper definition in a visible document of the extent of the airport, but once we include
…(whether or not licensed as mentioned in that paragraph) …
we shall find it very difficult to operate. What are the buildings or other works provided by a local authority?
In subsection (1) we have the words
… and the power of a local authority under that section to provide and maintain roads, approaches, apparatus, equipment, buildings and other accommodation shall be exercisable in connection with any aerodrome in respect of which the local authority has made such an arrangement.
Where do the approach roads to London Airport at Heathrow really start? Is it at Hyde Park Corner? The airport can be approached from that point, and from a number of other directions. What about "apparatus"? The wording is so wide that it can mean anything or nothing, and is therefore bad law. Ill-defined law is bad law, and no one knows that better than those who are not lawyers, who do quite well out of ill-

defined law. This is another example of a last opportunity we have to make sure that we do not legislate in a woolly and unspecific manner when actually it is not the intention so to do.
In the absence of any adequate explanation from the Minister as to the circumstances in which he envisages extending the regulation of charges to unlicensed premises and attributes of this kind
… approach roads, apparatus, equipment, buildings and other accommodation …
I believe that it will be very much better to leave out the brackets and the words they enclose, and keep in the Bill what could otherwise be quite a useful subsection.

Mr. William Rodgers: The hon. Member said that this was a probing operation. Having carried it out, I hope that he will feel reasonably satisfied. It is simply a matter of his not fully understanding the burden of the words in the brackets. The words are necessary because buildings and other facilities provided by a local authority could be on a Government aerodrome—an aerodrome owned by the Ministry of Defence or the Ministry of Technology, for instance—which was not licensed. It is clearly desirable that this provision should exist, and it would be damaging to the overall effectiveness of the Bill, certainly in this respect, if the words were removed.
I hope that the hon. Member will accept that, because for that clear reason I am bound to ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful for that explanation. It appears that the hon. Gentleman does not have in mind applying it to aerodromes not owned by such bodies as the Armed Forces of the Crown or the Minister of Technology; it is not intended to apply to private airstrips which are not licensed. That is what I had in mind. If the Minister can assure the House that that is what he has in mind I shall be satisfied.

Mr. William Rodgers: I can give that assurance.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 9

FUNCTIONS OF BRITISH AIRPORTS AUTHORITY AS RESPECTS ABANDONED VEHICLES

Mr. Onslow: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 6, line 37, at end insert:
Provided that the British Airports Authority shall not dispose of any vehicle until they have taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the name of the owner, whether he has left the United Kingdom in an aircraft operating out of the aerodrome concerned and if that be the case whether there is any reason to believe that he has died or been unavoidably prevented both from returning to the United Kingdom and from communicating with the British Airports Authority in regard to the disposal of the said vehicle
This is self-explanatory and it may also come into the probing category. The Minister will by now know that in Committee it was argued that if somebody had been unavoidably detained abroad, or had died or been killed while travelling abroad, leaving his car behind at a British Airports Authority airport— possibly in a multi-storey car park— there was a duty imposed upon the Authority to make sure precisely in what circumstances the vehicle had come to be apparently abandoned on its property, and to make the necessary searches to establish the ownership and to enable the owner's representatives or heirs to reclaim possession before putting it up for sale.
The Minister may say that the words
subject to such exceptions, adaptations or modifications as appear to him necessary".
will cover the point. If so, I do not wish to press the Amendment. But it is important to draw a distinction between the situation, which is covered by legislation, in which old motor cars are abandoned in the countryside or in the streets and the situation—which is much more likely to arise with the British Airports Authority—in which quite valuable motor cars are lodged in its care and parked under arrangements provided at aiports and when, for some reason, they are not reclaimed within a certain period.
It is not necessary to cite the case of the aircraft which was detained overseas for a considerable period, the pilots— although they had committed no offence —being incarcerated for a considerable time before being able to get back to this country. If those pilots had found

that in addition to the restraints to which they had been subjected they had suffered the indignity of having their motor cars sold it would not be a happy state of affairs.
I hope that the Minister can assure us that the purpose of the Amendment is covered by the Clause, or will tell us that he can accept the Amendment.

2.15 p.m.

Mr. Burden: The Clause deals with abandoned vehicles. It is interesting to note that in Committee the Minister's predecessor said:
I fully agree with the points about abandonment of cars through no fault of the owners—when it is not genuine abandonment. I cannot define 'abandoment' "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 13th June, 1968; c. 198.]
This underlines the tremendous care that must be taken before assuming that any car left on an aerodrome has been abandoned.
I hope that the Minister will take that remark of his hon. Friend very much to heart. There is always considerable pressure on an aerodrome to get cars moving and to make sure that they are not left too long, but it is essential that every step should be taken to ensure that a car is abandoned, and has been left for a considerable time, and also that every effort should be made to discover the whereabouts of the owner and whether he is in this country or has been detained abroad on business, or through an accident, or has even died abroad.
I ask the Minister to consider this point carefully. My hon. Friend and I will be happy if the Minister can assure us that every precaution will be taken to make sure, before any car is taken away or disposed of, that the owner has left it at the airport with no intention of reclaiming it.

Mr. Holland: I should like to have a specific definition of an abandoned car. Is it abandoned after a specific period? It must be remembered that we are responsible only for framing the law; we do not have to interpret it. We must therefore find wording so conclusive that its interpretation is exactly what we intend.
Is a car said to be abandoned after it has remained in the car park for a


specific period, or is it after so many attempts have been made, without success, to persuade the owner to remove it, or after so many attempts have been made to find the owner, whose identity may not be known? I do not know where we begin or end, or whether we are to take a combination of all three possibilities. Whatever power we intend to give to an airport authority we must carefully define the circumstances under which that power shall be used.
Unless we do this the Clause might be interpreted in a way that we would not wish it to be interpreted. If we cannot have a legal definition of the term "abandon" in this context, I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment. This, at least, makes an attempt to restrict the activity of the airport authority in this respect.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: We went into this matter fairly thoroughly in Committee. One point that was raised concerned the position of executors. A car may not have been moved because the person who deposited the car in the airport garage has been killed in an aircraft accident, or has died abroad. It is possible that his executors; will not have been able to discover the whereabouts of the car. There does not seem to be any duty laid upon an airport authority to contact executors.
This point was drawn forcibly to the attention of the then Minister of State, who responded by saying:
The executor point is one that I had not thought of. I will certainly look at that. Something, clearly, will have to be done on that point."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 13th June, 1968; c. 198.]
What I want to ask his successor is, what has been done? There is no Government Amendment to cover the point, so in what way is that undertaking to be honoured? We are entitled to insist on this, because debate is always curtailed and Amendments withdrawn when the Minister in charge of a Bill gives a specific commitment to do something later.
What do the Government propose to do? In our usual helpful way, we have tabled Amendment No. 12, which largely covers this point. The Minister has, in honour, only one of two alternatives—to accept our Amendment, or to offer one of his own. He has not offered one of his own, unless there has been a manuscript Amendment handed in in the last few

minutes—which I doubt—so we must call on him to honour his predecessor's cheque.
Two weeks ago, at the beginning of the Committee stage, we drew to his attention the fact that his predecessor had given 23 commitments, which were recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT. He has now had plenty of time to read through them, to find out what they were and to honour them. In the absence of any Government Amendment on this commitment, the least he can do is welcome our Amendment and advise the House to accept it.

Mr. William Rodgers: I welcome this further airing of a proper problem, although it is possible to argue that, while the circumstances of cars parked at airports are in some respects peculiar, one cannot exclude the possibility of someone parking a car elsewhere, then flying to Majorca and staying for three weeks instead of two. Therefore, even if it were decided to amend the Bill, the man who left his Jaguar at London Airport and then flew out might be provided for, whereas the man who left his Jaguar elsewhere, under the Civic Amenities Act of 1966, would not be provided for.
Although I recognise that there is a point here which must properly be considered, one cannot say that it is exclusively a problem of cars left at airports. Equally, under legislation of this kind, it is conceivable that someone who left his car on the street might fall sick, be incarcerated somewhere and might suffer a similar fate, if a fate is to be suffered at all—

Mr. Burden: The point is that, if that happened in this country, it would be much easier to establish whether a man was in hospital or had been killed in an accident than if it happened abroad. This is where care is necessary.

Mr. Rodgers: We are on the same wavelength. My point was that it is possible to park a car and fly in an aircraft without having parked the car at an airport—and someone who had done so would be in the same condition.
I am saying two things which appear to be contradictory but which must be considered. First, it is more likely in the case of an airport that this may


arise and I am therefore grateful to hon. Gentlemen for having drawn attention to it. On the other hand, if we are to be logical, we must recognise that the same circumstances could prevail with a car parked outside an airport, in which case the present provisions of the Civic Amenities Act would apply—

Mr. Holland: What we are discussing is disposal of the vehicle by the Airports Authority, which would not be concerned with vehicles parked outside but only with vehicles parked on its property.

Mr. Rodgers: I take the point, but the argument is that there are special circumstances about flight and people travelling abroad which therefore apply to cars which may or may not have been abandoned. I am saying that those special circumstances could apply to the person who has gone abroad but not left his car at the airport.
Therefore, I would argue that it is not right to amend the Bill and that it is much better that its provisions should remain in line with the Civic Amenities Act. I wholly understand that there is a special point here. I have been considering how best I could meet the wishes of the House, bearing in mind the point made by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). What I propose to do is this. As the House knows, Regulations in this respect are made by the Minister of Transport. I intend to write to my right hon. Friend, who will be drafting the Regulations, drawing his attention to these discussions and those in Committee, and to say that I am sure that he will bear in mind the points which have been made.

Mr. Corfield: I am sure that the Minister of State is doing his best, but there is a real difference between the powers conferred on the Airports Authority and the powers which may or may not apply where a motor car is abandoned, or appears to be abandoned, somewhere else. In the fortnight which has elapsed since we began this Report stage, my recollection of the Civic Amenities Act may have suffered, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman can enlighten me. I seem to recall that the Act does not give local authorities power to enter a private garage, that is a com-

mercial garage, and remove someone's car because the proprietor complains that it has been there a long time.
If one goes abroad in an aeroplane and does not leave one's motor car in a garage which is part of the aerodrome, the probability is that one leaves it at a commercial garage. If it is left in the street, of course, one must "lump it", whether or not one falls out of the aeroplane. But most people leave their cars in a commercial garage or car park. I understand that if that garage is privately-owned, the Civic Amenities Act does not entitle the local authority to remove the car.
We are dealing with the situation when a car is left on the property of the Airports Authority. After all, one function of its car parks is to enable people using aeroplanes to leave their cars there. This provision puts them in a special position to dispose of cars which may have been there for a long time, when the logical thing is that the special position should be in favour of the car owner rather than the garage owner.
With respect to the Minister, to say that he is grateful to us for having drawn this to his attention is not enough. The attention was drawn by my hon. Friends, who were remarkably assiduous in Committee, and the Minister has had more than enough time to consider this and ensure that the pledge given by his predecessor is fulfilled. It is not good enough to say that attention has been drawn to it, without giving reasons why the words of his predecessor, who clearly said that something needed to be done, are no longer applicable.
2.30 p.m.
This is not the way to treat the House. This is one of the reasons why, on the second day of the Report stage of this relatively small Bill, we are still here at half-past two and will probably still be here at four o'clock. It does not help when the Minister—I do not blame him—is not provided with a sensible brief. We are just as anxious as he is to get to our constituencies, but we will not let this sort of thing go through.

Mr. William Rodgers: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has lost his spirit of sweet reasonableness. I want to make it clear that if there is any fault, which I do not acknowledge, it lies with me and


not with anybody else. I know that the hon. Member, with his great sense of responsibility and Ministerial experience, does not seek to blame others who cannot be held to be responsible.
I thought that I had been fairminded. We have considered this matter fully and I acknowledge that there is an important point. I hoped that I was speeding the Bill forward in its improved form and taking note of all that had been said when I offered to write to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. If the House does not wish me to do that, I shall be glad to be saved the trouble, although it is within my proper responsibilities, even if the hon. Gentleman does not find it satisfactory, to do so.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Onslow: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 7, line 26, at end insert:
(4) The British Airports Authority shall include in their Annual Report a statement indicating the number of occasions on which a note as to the circumstances in which they have availed themselves of the powers accorded to them by any Order made by the Minister under this section.
This Amendment is self-explanatory and its purpose obvious. When the British Airports Authority gets powers by courtesy of the Ministry of Transport and with the advice of the President of the Board of Trade, it should be obliged to account to Parliament for their use. It is a matter of general interest that Parliament should have knowledge of the effects of legislation which it passes. If motor cars are deemed to have been abandoned and are disposed of by sale by the Airports Authority under the Clause, the House should know and should be in a position to judge whether the legislation is effective.
The obvious method for a report on the use of these powers to be rendered annually to Parliament would seem to me to be by inclusion in the annual report of the British Airports Authority. I hope that we can persuade the Minister of this.

Mr. William Rodgers: Alas, I am not persuaded. As, I think, the hon. Member knows, if it was considered essential to have this information the Board of Trade already has power to direct the Authority to provide it in its annual report. Whether at some stage we might

choose to give such a direction is not for me at present to say.
Again, we must have a sense of proportion. I do not minimise the importance of the issue when I say that, at the moment, I do not think that such a direction need be given. Obviously, however, if circumsances prove otherwise, as we have power we can certainly exercise it. I am sure that the hon. Member and the House as a whole will remind us if we fall short.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 11

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR CERTAIN AERODROMES

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 9, line 4, after '1965', insert:
'or which have subsequently been transferred'.
This is to some extent a probing Amendment. I fail to understand why airports which may in future be transferred to the British Airports Authority should be treated differently in this respect from those that were transferred to the Authority under the 1965 Act. Section 4 of that Act deals with the capital structure of the Authority, and any assets which are handed over to it are regarded as a capital debt. That is the way in which the four aerodromes which were handed over to the Authority by the Act—Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and, I think, Prestwick, although I am not sure whether that is the complete list—were dealt with.
The British Airports Authority was thereafter given borrowing powers to raise money for capital improvements at any of those four aerodomes. If it should happen that another aerodrome is transferred to the Authority—I do not pretend to have any foresight, but let us suppose hypothetically that Luton was selected as the third London Airport and was put under the British Airports Authority—why should not the Authority be left to raise any capital sums which it requires in exactly the same way as it will, presumably, have to raise it to put down, say, a second runway at Gatwick or whatever other improvements it has in mind to its existing airports?
Under the Clause, we seem to have the situation that there is not much difference concerning loans, because in the one case the Authority has borrowing powers and in the Bill there are powers to make a loan for aerodromes which may be transferred later. In the case of grant, it seems peculiar that if, in future, other aerodromes are handed over to the Authority, they will continue to be eligible for grant under Clause 11 but none of the other aerodromes will be.
As I understand it, if a fifth aerodrome is transferred to the Authority, legislation would be required. I do not think that there is any provision in the 1965 Act by which the four aerodromes which were transferred can be added to by order. Irrespective of that, there is bound to be some form of Statutory Instrument.
In future, if other aerodromes are to be added, as undoubtedly they will be, it will almost certainly be necessary to legislate and probably to provide a new financial structure for the Authority if its liabilities increase. With these considerations in mind, I cannot see much point in subsection (2). I cannot follow the reason for the exclusion of airports which may in future be transferred to the British Airports Authority.

Mr. William Rodgers: As the hon. Member has said, this is a probing Amendment. The point turns on the fact that it is not necessary to legislate to transfer other airports to the Airports Authority. That being the case, whereas under the 1965 Act the Authority is disqualified from receiving grants or loans in respect of the existing airports, it seems to us reasonable to make sure in the Bill that it should be possible for airports transferred under the existing legislation to benefit from such grants and loans. This is a reasonable provision, although I fully understand why the hon. Member felt that he had to probe it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 13

DETENTION AND SALE OF AIRCRAFT FOR UNPAID AIRPORT CHARGES

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 10, line 22,

leave out 'twenty-eight' and insert 'fifty-six'.
The purpose of the Amendment is clear. It is designed to ensure that there is plenty of time between the impounding of aircraft and any question of sale. Twenty-eight days does not seem to us to be enough. I know that that is the sort of period which is specified in many Acts of Parliament, and one could argue till the cows come home whether it should be 21, 28 or 56 days. There can be no hard and fast right or wrong.
Nevertheless, 28 days seems to us to be dangerously short, for a number of reasons. The chief reason is that I am not happy, nor are many people in the air transport world, that we have yet completely got the mechanism for ensuring that all possible rights in aircraft are registered and can be checked at any time and at short notice.
If one is to exercise the power of sale, whether of land under a straightforward mortgage, or under a chattel mortgage such as that with which we are dealing, it is essential that one knows what prior interests there are in the chattel or land. This is tightly tied up in connection with land under the Land Registration Act. But we are here dealing with an entirely new provision and we must ensure that we have it right.
I had tabled an Amendment to draw attention to the necessity of a claim being registered before it could be recovered and have priority over any of the debts in respect of which an aircraft might be sold, but that Amendment was not selected. Until we are absolutely certain that it is possible to ensure, at short notice, that all possible interests in the aeroplane are known before the question of its sale arises, we should extend the time. Aeroplanes are curious machines from the point of view of the number of interests that can exist—what with wet and dry leases, chattel mortgages and so on—and it is vital that we get this matter clear.

Mr. Burden: I urge the Minister to accept the Amendment in view of the drastic action which is represented by this power to sell an aircraft in default of the payment of airport charges. This could involve the sale of an aircraft costing £2 million to £3 million for the default of airport charges worth, perhaps, several hundreds of £s or a few thousand.
It is essential that, before any such action is taken, every effort is made to ensure that those who might have a claim on the aircraft, such as the lessors or mortgagors, have an opportunity of intervening. Extending the time scale from 28 days to 56 days would not cause undue hardship to an aerodrome authority, but it would ensure that no injustice was done to those who might have a vital interest in the aircraft.
When the Minister considers this proposal I urge him to remember that, to ascertain the rights of people or companies in aircraft, it might be desirable to establish a register of British aircraft which would indicate whether any rights of ownership or proprietary rights existed.

Mr. William Rodgers: As the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) pointed out, there is no hard and fast right or wrong in this matter. The question is to find the right number of days to serve the purpose we have in mind. On the clear understanding that no precedent is being set, and in a spirit of good will, I accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

2.45 p.m.

Mr. Onslow: I beg to move Amendment 20, in line 29, leave out paragraph (a).
Would it be convenient, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the following Amendment-No. 21, in line 33, leave out from 'authority' to 'sufficient' in line 34—at the same time?

Mr. Speaker: If that is the wish of the House.

Mr. Onslow: Encouraged by the Minister's acceptance of the last Amendment, I move this one recalling that the point in question was argued at considerable length in Committee. It appears that, as drafted, the provision means that a man who wishes to recover an aircraft detained by an aerodrome authority must satisfy the two conditions set out in the Clause. They are, first, that he must
… dispute that the charges, or any of them, are due …
and, secondly, he must give
… to the authority, pending the determination of the dispute, sufficient security for the payment of the charges which are alleged to be due.

I find it difficult to understand why these two conditions should be in the provision. I can envisage circumstances arising in which a man might find it impossible to satisfy one of them; somebody with an interest or claiming an interest in an aircraft might not be able to say to the aerodrome authority, "I dispute that the charges are due" because he might have no knowledge of the background to the charges. Indeed, he might not be interested in disputing the charges, accepting that they are due, since they may have been incurred by somebody else.
It appears that, as drafted, the provision means that dispute is essential before deposit can be made. If this is not so, I fail to understand why the Clause is worded in this way. I also fail to see— anticipating the Minister's reply—why this series of Amendments would weaken the provision, since this part of the Clause would read, if my proposal were accepted:
An aerodrome authority shall not detain, or continue to detain, an aircraft under this section by reason of any alleged default in the payment of airport charges if the operator of the aircraft or any other person claiming an interest therein … gives to the authority … sufficient security for the payment of the charges which are alleged to be due.
This is a crystally clear situation and does not involve the question of whether or not any charges are disputed. The charges can then be recovered. The words which I propose to leave out are an unnecessary barrier, remembering that people with interests in aircraft may not have been involved in the non-payment of charges which have been incurred, and not paid, by those responsible for their payment. I hope that, precedent or not, the Minister will accept the Amendment.

Mr. William Rodgers: As the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said, this matter was fully discussed in Committee. I assure him that I have read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee discussion fully before approaching the subject today.
As is fully understood, the Amendment would expressly prevent an aerodrome authority from taking action, even in cases where there was no dispute about the charges. The Bill, as drafted, appears to me to be adequate for any possible circumstances which one can envisage arising. The hon. Gentleman said that


there should not be an unnecessary barrier. There is no such barrier. He said that dispute was essential before deposit may be made, but that is not the case.
There is nothing in the Bill to prevent an owner or interested party from making a voluntary arrangement with the aerodrome authority for the release of an aircraft by the deposit of security, if the aerodrome authority is agreeable. We must have some sense of proportion in this matter or we will run into a situation of bureaucracy which I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would not find acceptable. The aerodrome authority concerned will wish to get its charges. It will have no wish to detain aircraft unnecessarily. I believe that, in practice, agreement will be reached in any foreseeable circumstances. I must, therefore, resist the Amendment.

Mr. Burden: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, perhaps he can clarify one point. It might, in some circumstances, be desirable, without there being a dispute, to get a bond from, say, a small company which flies in and out of London Airport, in case there might be a default. In other words, cash on account. Would this provision stop such action being taken?

Mr. Rodgers: I see no reason why any voluntary arrangement should not be reached. I am new to this subject and the hon. Gentleman is well experienced in it, but I assume that the great majority of those who own and operate aircraft are as responsible as anyone else and that reasonable men will get together and reach reasonable solutions.

Mr. Corfield: That is not sufficient answer. We should be reasonable in this House in the first place. We have the curious situation that, in order to have the right to say to an aerodrome authority which is detaining one's aircraft, "You must release it", one not only has to put down adequate security but must dispute the charges.
There can be a multitude of interests and rights in aircraft. Subsection (2) says:
An aerodrome authority shall not detain … an aircraft … if the operator of the aircraft or any other person claiming an interest therein …".

Surely the hon. Gentleman can visualise the situation in which a person operating the aircraft under charter or some kind of lease owes money to the aerodrome authority in respect of landing charges. The aircraft is impounded. But then someone with some other interest in the aircraft decides that he wants to release it and he puts down a security. He may have no knowledge of the dealings between the charterer, the lessee and the aerodrome authority or of the grounds of the claim. Equally, when he goes to the aerodrome authority—and I agree that we would not expect it to be unreasonable—it might reasonably say, "What proof have we of your claim?" One could, therefore, have a long negotiation because the authority might reasonably say that it should not part with the aircraft on the basis of security given by the claimant until it is sure not merely that he has an interest but that it overrides the interests of the persons from whom the charges are due.
This is an important point and it is no answer to say that we are relying on people behaving reasonably unless we show that we are behaving reasonably. The word "and" here is patently unreasonable. No case has been made out for making it obligatory, when enforcing a right against the aerodrome authority to release one's aircraft, that one should both dispute the charges and give reasonable security. We should be concerned with the rights of the individual as well as with the powers of the aerodrome authorities.
The Minister of State is making the wrong approach and the word "and" has in no way been justified. If we must have paragraph (a), the word "or" should be substituted for "and". It is astonishing that the word "and" should still be retained after all the arguments put against it. I am not often conceited about my own arguments but the hon. Gentleman has not punched one single hole through them. Until he is able to, we cannot be happy with the situation.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 11, line 15 after 'shall', insert:
be paid into court and provided the court is satisfied as to the accuracy of each of the amounts claimed shall'.


The proceeds of a sale are to be paid out in the order set out in subsection (5). There are two objections to leaving this entirely to the selling authority, which is the aerodrome authority, and not to the courts. First, the aerodrome authority will probably have no means of judging the accurancy of the claim under the various headings of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (5). Secondly, it will certainly have no means of judging the priority of other interests. This is a matter very much for the courts.
Since the aerodrome authority has to take the matter to the court before a sale can take place, it would be better if the purchase money were paid into the court. By all means let us have a directive in the Bill as to the order in which claims are to be met. But it is asking too much of the aerodrome authority to make it responsible for checking the amounts of the claims and their validity.
This is not only putting an unnecessary and unreasonable burden on the aerodrome authority. It is putting in the hands of a body which is not constituted for this purpose powers which could well have a very drastic and unjust effect on individuals with claims which perhaps should have been considered as priority or which have unjustifiably been cut down in amount by an authority not qualified to judge.

Mr. Rodgers: I have looked at this. It is an awkward legal point but, after the full discussion in Standing Committee, which I have read, I am not satisfied that any change is required, bearing in mind all the factors involved and having consulted the judicial authorities.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am not happy about this. This is properly a judicial function. We went into it at considerable length in Committee. It is not really for an aerodrome authority to determine priorities of this kind. It is established as an administrative unit and not as a judicial unit, and just to brush the matter off as something he has looked at does not get rid of the fact for the hon. Gentleman that this is a judicial rather than an administrative function. One wonders in what light he looked at it if he decided that it was an administrative rather than a judicial function. But

this is typical of the rather superficial manner in which many points of principle put during the passage of the Bill have been brushed under the carpet.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Onslow: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 11, line 29, at end insert:
(e) in payment of any other airport charges incurred at any other aerodrome in the United Kingdom in respect either of that aircraft or of any other aircraft of which the person in default is the operator and which the court, upon the application of the owner or manager of such other aerodrome, finds to be due.
This is a small Amendment which covers a point which has not been previously discussed. Under subsection (5) of the Clause, certain priorities are laid down for disposing of the proceeds of a forced sale of an aircraft. One of the parties who has been omitted from the list—I suspect inadvertently—is the aerodrome authority other than the detaining authority where charges in respect of aircraft seized and detained may nevertheless be due.
The Minister will probably readily take the point that, if it is right to seize and sell an aircraft at one airfield in respect of charges which have not been paid by the operator of that aircraft, there should be some means of safeguarding the position of other airport authorities which may suddenly be in the position of having no possibility of claiming money due as a result of the enforced sale although they may be owed more than the authority which has carried out the sale and recouped its losses.
If the Minister concedes this point, it will be of some value in improving the Clause, although I admit that we have a long-stop operation because our Amendments may go back to the other House which may take another view if the Minister is not feeling very forthcoming over this matter.

3.0 p.m.

Mr. William Rodgers: This is a new point, but I am surprised that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) who, with his colleagues, has been very concerned about the whole framework of the Clause, is anxious to extend the powers in it in such a wide way. The effect of the Amendment would be to give persons with no connection with the actual


charges on the aircraft priority over other creditors. Even if the Amendment were not defective in its drafting, I would have to ask the House to reject it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Burden: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 11, line 34, after "extends", insert
(in so far as its sale is reasonably necessary either to cover the payments set out in the preceding subsection or to secure the best price that can reasonably be obtained in accordance with subsection (4) of this section) ".

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss Amendment No. 26, in line 40, at end to insert:
but such equipment and stores shall be detained and sold only if the saleable value of the aircraft is likely to be less than the sum for which the operator is in default and if the removal of such equipment would affect the immediate operational efficiency of the impounded aircraft".

Mr. Burden: Subsection (6) of this Clause extends power of detention and sale in respect of an aircraft to
any stores for use in connection with its operation (being equipment and stores carried in the aircraft) whether or not the property of the person who is its operator, and references to the aircraft in subsections (2) to (5) of this section include, except where the context otherwise requires, references to any such equipment and stores.
The intention of these two Amendments is to ensure that the equipment and stores of the aircraft are necessary to ensure that sufficient money is available to cover the airport charges for which the aircraft is under disposal. When one takes into consideration the cost of most modern aircraft, there is no doubt that there would be available in the aircraft as it stands sufficient money to pay all reasonable charges. I am told that the usual accounting system of the airport authority ensures that payments of landing charges are made 30 days after they are incurred. In the disposal of an aircraft for payment of charges, very considerable sums are involved. There should be no powers given in the Bill which would enable moneys to be raised considerably in excess of the amount required for outstanding charges.
If an aircraft carries equipment and stores and by disposal of them the amount is merely increased and eventu-

ally part of it has to be handed back to the owners of the aircraft, this seems a stupid thing to do. The subsection says:
whether or not the property of the person who is its operator.
It is provided that the authority may dispose, not only of the aircraft which is under the control of the operator, but of stores which may not be owned by the operator. This is a departure from English law which should be seriously considered.
It is analogous to the Minister buying a car from a friend and some time later taking it into the garage at which his friend had previously garaged the car, his friend being in default of garage fees. The car is then taken over by the garage owner and disposed of. In addition, in the back of the car there is a mink coat—I am sure that any friends of the hon. Gentleman would have a nice mink coat—and this, too, is disposed of to settle the costs of the garaging which have not been paid. This is utterly wrong and Amendment No. 25 is intended to deal with it.
It may be argued that there are certain equipment and stores aboard the aircraft which, if removed, would reduce its saleable value. It might be argued that the removal of an engine which was still on charge to one of the big engine manufacturers would immobilise the aircraft and considerably impair its sale-ability. It may be that this is why the Clause is so drafted.
If this is so, the Minister might like to give consideration to accepting Amendment No. 26. I believe that the terms of this Amendment are reasonable. I hope that the Minister will give it his serious consideration, as it would remove from the Clause the very objectionable feature that the Bill confers the right to dispose of property belonging to someone other than the owner or operator of the aircraft to raise the wind to pay the airport authority. If there could be some moderation of this by tying it down in the way I have suggested, it would go a long way.

Mr. William Rodgers: I have given these Amendments very serious consideration. I appreciate the point that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) has in mind. The procedure is


already very complicated. When I referred earlier to common sense and reasonableness, it was suggested that these characteristics were not to be found in the world of business, but I refuse to believe it. Even were it not for this consideration, alas, the Amendments are defective and would not improve the Bill even if there were virtue in their content.

Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are cursory and abrupt. The House is entitled to a little more information as to why something cannot be done. The Bill will confer the right for an airport authority to sell something which does not belong to those who are in default.

Mr. Corfield: I must press the Minister about this. It is easy enough to say that in any case our Amendments are not drafted well enough to go into the Bill. Why not? We have not been told. In all other branches of the law we take care not to give to people with liens, chattel mortgages or other rights in property power to sell more than is necessary to cover the account. It is not good enough simply to say that all this must be left to people's reasonableness. I have not for a moment suggested that people will not be reasonable in business, but it is for the House of Commons, and the Government in particular, to set an example when preparing Bills.
It is not reasonable to give power to sell an aircraft and at the same time to sell whatever may be inside it, whether that be necessary to meet the account or not. It is not helping matters for the Minister to keep saying that he has given this or that matter consideration. He cannot have slept for weeks, judging by the amount of consideration which he tells us he has given to these questions. We have had no explanation of the reason why he has decided that he cannot accept the Amendment, either from a drafting point of view or from the legal point of view.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 18

CONTROL OF AIRCRAFT NOISE AND SUPERSONIC FLIGHT

Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move Amendment 29, in page 17, line 14, leave out 'exceeding the speed of sound' and insert:
'in excess of Flight Mach 1'.

Mr. Speaker: We shall debate at the same time Amendment 28, in page 17, line 13, leave out from 'aircraft' to end of line 15 and insert:
'in the airspace of the United Kingdom at speeds in excess of Flight Mach ·98 '.

Mr. Rodgers: This Amendment deals with a matter which was much discussed in Committee. I found the debate most interesting in a field of which I had previously very limited experience. In the hope of meeting the wishes of the House, I have proposed Amendment 29. In Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) made three points: first, that the reference to the speed of sound was not sufficiently definite as it did not make clear that the reference was to the speed of sound in the ambient conditions; second, that speed should be defined in terms of Mach numbers; third, that power should be taken to regulate speeds just below supersonic speeds.
On the first point, the present drafting was adopted because it was considered to be sufficient for providing the vires, though it was always realised that it would be necessary to go into more precise detail in drafting Orders in Council. However—here I respond to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield)—there is no harm in being more precise, and for this reason I am happy to commend the Amendment to the House.
I have considered the other points made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and have much sympathy with what I take to be the spirit of the Amendment standing in his name and those of his hon. Friends, to insert a reference to air space. However, having looked at it, and in the absence of further explanation at this stage, as there is no legal definition of air space, I feel that we meet the substance of his Amendment by our


Amendment, whereas I should have to resist his.

3.15 p.m.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The Amendment covers some of the ground which I desire to see covered, but it does not cover nearly enough. The Minister has been quite persistent on one point without giving any explanation.
This is an enabling Clause which enables the Minister to make regulations, not a mandatory Clause. By having as the lower limit Mach 1 he is tying his hands so that he cannot make regulations which will prevent aircraft inadvertently going through Mach 1. Hon. Members who have had the experience of complaining to Service Ministers about military aircraft exceeding Mach 1 and producing sonic boom, will know that more often than not the reply to that the pilot has done so accidentally in the course of avoiding action or a manoeuvre of some kind. He has accidentally gone through Mach 1 although he was intending to fly below it. That is why I pressed strongly in Committee that enabling powers should be taken at a lower limit, just below the speed of sound. I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) will take this point.
If the only enabling powers that the Minister takes have a lower limit of Flight Mach 1, in many cases that will be inadequate to deal with the situation we want to prevent, which is aircraft exceeding the speed of sound and producing serious sonic boom conditions over inhabited land masses. If the Minister would accept an Amendment to make it Mach 098 he would then have power to lay effective regulations, which he will not have if he sticks to Mach 1 for no good reasons. He does not gain anything by sticking to Mach 1. He is being obstinate, and there is no technical reason for sticking to Mach 1.
The words used in the Bill are "over the United Kingdom". Clause 18(1) refers to:
… regulating or prohibiting the flight of aircraft over the United Kingdom at speeds exceeding the speed of sound".
These are the words which the Minister proposes to amend, while still leaving the words "over the United Kingdom". This means, as I read it, that aircraft

can fly supersonically a quarter of a mile off the coast, which is not "over the United Kingdom", and the Minister will be powerless by this Clause to make regulations controlling that.
For Heaven's sake, if we are to have an enabling Act, we certainly need to control matters of this kind, let us make the enabling Act as wide as possible so that the Minister in making regulations can draw them as widely as is necessary to meet aspects of a problem which even he with his vast technical knowledge may not anticipate at this moment.

Mr. Holland: Would my hon. Friend probe a little further and inquire whether "the United Kingdom" includes territorial waters which would cover a 12-mile limit?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Yes indeed, but the shape of the debate during the last three-quarters of an hour has been that the Minister does not attempt to answer points which have been brought up in debate.

Mr. Rodgers: Yes.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The Minister says yes. That is a good start. Perhaps on the remaining Amendments we will have a proper answer instead of being told that there is an unspecified drafting defect and leaving it at that. I certainly am not prepared to leave it at that.
The matter was raised in Committee, and the Minister has had plenty of time to deal with it and to specify why he is tying his hands quite needlessly. As the Minister quite possibly is not aware, the speed of sound depends upon a number of conditions which are not under the control of the pilot of the aircraft. Ambient temperature is one of them. Although the pilot can very often but not invariably control the altitude at which the aircraft is flying, he cannot control the ambient temperature. As the Minister will now know if he has read the Official Report of the Committee Stage, the speed of sound under international standard atmosphere conditions, but only under those conditions, is 760 knots at sea level and 660 knots at the beginning of the tropopause. In other words, it is a varying speed. It is not the case that a pilot can accurately predict what temperature strata he will run into in the course of flying along a given flight path. It is


because of that that a pilot can quite unintentionally exceed Mach 1 when he does not mean to and is not allowed to. The only way effectively of preventing it from happening is to start regulating the conditions under which pilots are flying at a speed below that which they must not attain. I would have thought that that followed as night follows day.
That is why anyone who is interested in preventing civil aircraft flying super-sonically over inhabited land masses has a vested interest in seeing that the Minister gives himself adequate powers in the Bill, because there will not be another for a long time and, at the end of Report on this Amendment, this is the last occasion when he will have the opportunity to do so. When supersonic aircraft are in service, it will be too late for him to wish that he could take powers under the Act which he has deliberately denied himself, when the technical case has been explained at length in Committee and his predecessor showed a very receptive attitude towards it.
There is nothing in the Amendment which forces the Minister to make recommendations which he does not want to make. It is purely enabling. If the Minister wished in another place to add a definition of "United Kingdom air space", may I remind him that it is generally accepted internationally that a county's air space is a theoretical column extending not only over its land frontiers but also over its territorial waters. This has been established for many years. If the hon. Gentleman cares to consult his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Foreign Office, he will learn that complaints about the infringement of air space very often come when no land has been crossed but when foreign aircraft intrude into that portion of the air space which is inside the exterior limits of its territorial waters.
By adopting the form of words that he has, he has restricted his power to aircraft which are flying physically over the United Kingdom. If, for example, they are flying up the Bristol Channel—

Mr. William Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman has not got a point here. I answered yes to the intervention by the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland).

I was seeking simply to help him. He made a fair point. I have considered it fully. But I have given a straightforward answer that the provisions of the 1949 Act deal wholly with the point that the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is seeking to make in his Amendment.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Unfortunately, the drafting which the Minister has adopted is not very helpful in that respect. But where he says "over the United Kingdom", he has not made it clear that those words include the United Kingdom air space outside the column of air space going vertically above the land masses.

Mr. William Rodgers: It does.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It may be that there is a general definition in the 1949 Act which includes United Kingdom territorial waters external to the United Kingdom. That is possible, but it was not an explanation offered by his hon. Friend in Committee. If by any chance the 1949 Act covers that point, well and good, but certainly it does not cover the point about Mach ·98.
I think that we can predict with reasonable accuracy, as it is logical to assume that the Minister is getting advice from the same quarter as his predecessor did, that when the debate on this subject is concluded—and I trust that he will not intervene before it is—he will say that he is advised—and, not being technically informed himself, he will not know whether it is good advice—that sonic boom is not produced until an aircraft is flying considerably in excess of an indicated Mach I, which is what his hon. Friend said previously. It will be just as irrelevant and significantly untrue as when his hon. Friend said it.
Unfortunately, although it may be a defence to the Minister constitutionally to take bad advice, it does not make good law. His predecessor was good enough to invite me to discuss this with those who were advising him technically, although the present Minister thought that that was unnecessary. I can only assume therefore, that he has looked further afield for advice than did his predecessor, and, as a result, he has been able to have an independent check on the advice which


was previously available to his predecessor. I should like to believe that was true, but I very much doubt that it is.
So we come back to the situation in which, as drafted, what is now Clause 18 does not succeed in doing what every hon. Member seeks to do. The Minister has added a titbit. He has defined the speed of sound in a Mach number, the necessity for this having been explained at considerable length in Committee, but he has still stuck to Mach I and will not come down to Mach ·98. I end as I began by saying that if he accepts the starting point of Mach ·98, that will not force him to use that in his regulations. He will lose absolutely nothing. He does not believe me, but I am telling him that if he limits himself to a starting point of Mach I, he or his successors will regret not having the power which they will need, and many people who already suffer severe discomfort from aircraft noise will look back longingly to the days when it was only aircraft noise which distressed them and before they started getting pressure waves of the magnitude of up to 2 lbs. per square inch, as is possible, although the Minister has not experienced it, with supersonic flight by heavy aircraft, particularly when they are undertaking some fairly violent manoeuvre. I beg him to take the opportunity of listening to the points of view of other hon. Members and at the very least to say that there is a considerable doubt and that he will legislate for the benefit of that doubt at Mach 98 rather than Mach I.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: We are all anxious that the Government should get the Bill, including its Third Reading, this afternoon and, as is my normal custom, I shall intervene for only two minutes. I have intervened only once before today and that for only two minutes, and I shall do the same again. It is necessary for me to intervene because of what the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has been saying. The hon. Member was arguing that we have the bread and even that we recognise that there is a little jam, but that we do not like the colour of the jam. I am sorry

that the general atmosphere of peace and harmony which prevailed when I was here earlier seems to have broken down and I am anxious to bring my beneficent presence to bear in order to bring us back to where we were.
It is the manner in which the Minister interprets the regulations which he will issue under the Clause which will decide whether the fears of the hon. Member for Tiverton are justified. For my part, I am prepared to give the hon. Member the benefit of the doubt.
3.30 p.m.
What I think the Minister will do will be to issue regulations laying down the circumstances in which such flights may be undertaken, and if the regulations say that only in these circumstances may the speed of sound—to use the common usage—be exceeded, it seems to me that the object of the exercise is achieved. In the strictly technical sense, I think that the hon. Gentleman is right, and I do not see why my hon. Friend cannot accept the Amendment, but I may have given the explanation. It would be difficult to cast regulations saying, "Not only can you not exceed the speed of sound but you cannot nearly exceed the speed of sound". That being so, I think that my hon. Friend is right, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment.
I pestered my hon. Friend's predecessor, a pestering which he met with very great courtesy, and finished up by accepting the point of the pestering by himself introducing an Amendment in Committee. That is something on which he is to be congratulated. We now have a Clause which, if the Minister wishes to lay regulations, may be of great benefit to us all. We shall need that benefit because, with the arrival of Concorde—and the Ministry has already paid out £150 in one case for damage to hearing—supersonic flying constitutes a very real threat to the community. It is essential that the Minister should exercise his right under the Bill and that the regulations should be firm, just and adequate to protect people from the consequences of supersonic flying.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23

POWER OF BRITISH AIRPORTS AUTHORITY, B.E.A. AND B.O.A.C. TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE

Mr. Onslow: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 19, line 16, at end insert:
'and they shall include in their respective annual reports a statement indicating how often and in what circumstances they have exercised these powers'.
The Clause as it stands gives wide powers to the British Airports Authority, to B.E.A. and to B.O.A.C. to deal with matters at present not within their jurisdiction, but the merits or demerits of this have already been argued so I shall not rehearse them. This Amendment seeks to ensure that when these bodies make use of the powers, perhaps at the behest of the Board of Trade but most probably at that of the Ministry of Overseas Development or some other Department, they shall be obliged to publish that fact in their reports. I hope that we shall not be told that this is an appropriate matter for Ministerial direction. It could well be brought within the ambit of Statute, and this would be a convenient and necessary way of doing so.

Mr. William Rodgers: As I explained on Amendment No. 13, powers exist for making a directive, but we are confident that the Corporations will use their commonsense and refer in their future reports to important cases of this kind. In practice, the burden of the hon. Gentleman's wish will be well met.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 27

SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 31, in page 21, line 22, leave out 'said' and insert 'British Airports'.—[Mr. William Rodgers.]

Order for Third Reading read.— [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

3.35 p.m.

Mr. Onslow: The Motion in the Order Paper, "That the Question be not put forthwith" is an unusual one, but this is an unusual Bill. One of its unusual features is that until now it has not come before the House for debate, because it received its Second Reading in Committee, after having been introduced in another place. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious that it should receive its Third Reading, because there are important features in it which it was felt that hon. Members on both sides should be able to comment upon.
The Bill has other unusual features. It was introduced as a standard Departmental rag-bag, but in the course of its passage it turned into something quite different. It became virtually a Private Member's Bill in Government time, and with very great help and co-operation from the Minister's predecessor and his understanding attitude in Committee, the Committee can claim to have succeeded greatly in improving and extending this legislation. That is not a claim which can often be made and supported by both sides of the House. The Bill's Committee stage was an enjoyable and instructive experience. Even our adjournments in confusion were put to profitable use. This might become a more common Parliamentary device, to the mutual benefit of us all.
The Bill contains a number of welcome powers concerning consultative procedure and the control of noise and the sonic boom—which latter is very necessary, and in respect of which the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) is not the only person to have pestered the Minister; my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) put down the first Amendment on the subject. These powers will be of considerable value to the public.
I do not wish to expound upon them because we have heard a good deal about them today. But serious though this problem is, and seriously though we can see it now being taken, there should not be any false hopes about it. The normal course of events is such that as older and quieter aircraft are phased out of operation and the quantity of air traffic increases there will be an increase in aircraft noise in the next 10 or 15 years.


Nobody should expect—however desirable he may find them—that these powers will lead to an immediate diminution in levels of aircraft noise. That is not necessarily something to be said against the Bill. The important point is that this is a first step forward, although not one on which we should base too extravagant hopes.
The Bill provides for greater security of airfields, and contains powers to detain aircraft and enforce charges. One Clause contains powers to extend the facilities which can be provided by local authorities, while another will have the effect of widening the financial arrangements for the purchase of aircraft, thus doing much to stimulate the general development of the industry. The powers of Clause 22 should do much to increase safety in the air. These are all welcome provisions, and the Bill is one which the House as a whole has welcomed and done much to improve.
It is a useful Bill, although some of its powers will depend for their value upon the way in which the Minister employes them. We want to get the Bill through today and there is not sufficient time for him to do so now, but on some other occasion I hope that the Minister will explain how he will seek to make use of Clauses 6 and 11, which refer to the question of extending facilities; how much money is likely to be made available for further expenditure on airports by local authorities, and whether he sees in this the roots of a national airport policy, which this country very much needs and which we shall have to debate increasingly in the years ahead.
We are not sufficiently air-minded. There is insufficient awareness in transport and communication of what can be made of the potentialities of aviation. There needs to be a general pressing forward in this field. Clause 22, with its inclusion of near misses in the safety regulations, is obviously important. We can debate this at greater length when we have, as I hope we will, a full debate on air safety, but I hope that we can be assured that statistics on this subject will be collected and can be made available.
Finally, we want some further indication of how the Minister will use the powers to control supersonic flight. Although the authority is an enabling one, much will depend upon how he uses it. Many people feel that we shall have to think very carefully before sanctioning supersonic flights over the United Kingdom at all. There may be circumstances in which they can be deemed to be tolerable. There is a distinction between over-flight by day and by night. There is need on all these matters for greater testing and knowledge, much of which can never be obtained until the aircraft have taken to the air and have flown at supersonic speeds. We will not know the final answers on much of this, therefore, until Concorde has been in action, if not fully in operation, but we need an assurance that, as soon as the point is reached at which decisions can be taken about the use of these powers, the Minister will be able to let the House know how he intends to use them.
I see no part of the Bill as a victory for a particular lobby, although the anti-noise lobby can claim some credit for having softened up the Minister. I see the way in which the Bill has been improved and the powers it contains as a victory for common sense. All hon. Members must welcome this rare opportunity to see so much common sense in one piece of legislation. If there are still deficiencies, we can fall back on one consolation—that the Bill has been so radically altered since it came from another place that much of its contents will have to go back to another place as Amendments from this House. The enlightened other place being what it is, it may be possible to insert certain further improvements there. But all of us must share the hope that the Bill will become law before the end of this Session. It has been a most valuable exercise in legislation and I commend it heartily to the House.

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: When we began our proceedings on the Bill, it seemed that it would be a dull, simple and possibly dreary operation, but it has finished almost in a blaze of glory. I wish to speak only on two major matters which


have thrust themselves into the Bill during our consideration of it.
There is now included a new Clause which says that the person having the management of any aerodrome
… shall provide for users of the aerodrome, for any local authority … and for any other organisation representing the interests of persons concerned with the locality in which the aerodrome is situated, adequate facilities for consultation with respect to any matter concerning the management or administration of the aerodrome which affects their interests
That is one of the most comprehensive Clauses which I have read in any Bill and the remarkable thing is that it has been inserted in one forenoon and inadequately debated.
How are we to comprehend the phrase "users of the aerodrome", when we come to provide these facilities? Obviously, they could live in any part of the world. I am not condemning, but merely trying to show the comprehensive nature of this piece of legislation which has been inserted in the Bill, after we had sat for weeks dealing with it, upstairs, in two hours, as was noted at one o'clock today. For those people, for local authorities and for a variety of others, we are providing adequate facilities for consultation on matters concerning management or administration—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We debated the new Clause, as the hon. Member has pointed out, for two hours. We must not debate it again now.

Mr. Rankin: I am merely trying to point out, Mr. Speaker, the things that are now in the Bill, to which we are giving a Third Reading. I regard this as an important addition. It raises matters of great interest for almost every airport in the United Kingdom. These are matters on which we have to focus our attention. The Bill makes provision for certain things and surely it is pertinent to ask at this point how we will met the obligations which are imposed upon Parliament in the Clause.
The second important thing which the Bill does is to prohibit aircraft
from taking off or landing in the United Kingdom unless there are in force in respect of those aircraft such certificates of compliance with standards as to noise which may be specified in the Order",
which has still to be delivered to us. This controls movements of aircraft and says

that they may not be permitted to land in this country. This has been confused with a campaign; and it is a credit to some extent, that this campaign has helped to control noise.
It is fair to point out that we all want to have aircraft which are as noiseless as their power will permit. I hope that in seeking to give force to this part of the Bill, we will assure every air traveller that safety in flight will not be endangered. That is one of the paramount jobs now laid upon the operator. If the Order concerning noise is to operate successfully and noise is to be controlled, since so much in an aircraft depends upon the engine assurance is necessary that there will be no danger to the safety of any passenger in any aircraft in seeking to comply with this part of the Bill.
In view of the lack of time I limit myself to the two issues which I have raised. They are the most important additions to the legislation. I wish the Bill all success in fulfilling the job which Parliament has imposed upon it.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the House wants the Bill today, I remind hon. Members that only 10 minutes now remain to complete Third Reading.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I am glad of this opportunity to comment on the Bill and I wish particularly to refer to Clause 18, which is concerned with the control of aircraft noise and supersonic flights. I understand that this matter was raised in the discussion of earlier Amendments and that the Minister indicated then that it would be more appropriate to discuss the subject on Third Reading.
Alas, noise is a matter which is of growing concern to my constituents, for reasons which I will mention. There is a considerable danger that we too readily accept the view that increasing aircraft noise is something about which we can do nothing. I agree, however, with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) that while an increasing level of noise is inevitable, that should not detract us from minimising it as much as possible.
I am particularly concerned today with the question of consultation and the effect


which minimum heights have on aircraft noise. Clause 18 gives the Minister enabling powers to control the level of aircraft noise. This is of particular interest to my constituents, partly because Worthing is a holiday town. People from other parts of the country who are more severely affected by aircraft noise may come to my constituency to escape the noise. It is no attraction for a holiday town to have a high level of aircraft noise. Many of my constituents are retired and it is now accepted that the retired population suffers greater misfortune in this respect than other sections of society.
A new aircraft route has only recently been directed right through the middle of my constituency. People are bound to say, "Airplanes must fly over somebody's constituency. We must face up to that." However, one need only look at the map to see that the population is further out into the countryside of Worthing that it is almost anywhere, with the exception of Brighton. It seems ridiculous to have routed aircraft right through my constituency and a part of the coast where the population is most widespread. The fact that the route may be spread over a 10-mile lane does not justify the centre of the flight lane going right through the deepest part of the population in this area.
I therefore doubt whether adequate consultation took place or sufficient consideration was given to this matter before the route was decided. It seems that the knowledge that the new air route was to go this way leapt into the Press almost by accident. I was, therefore, surprised, when I raised this matter in a Question on 3rd May last, that the Minister replied:
The new routing was fully discussed with representatives of all the flying interests concerned, and the noise implications were thoroughly examined."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1968; Vol. 763, c. 262.]
As far as I can ascertain, there was no attempt to take account of people's interests in this matter and no consultation took place.
It is to be hoped that the Minister will make more Orders of the kind permitted by Clause 18 and that, in doing so, lie will take into account all the people over whom air routes are likely to pass. It is not good enough to say that aeroplanes

must fly somewhere, over some people, so that nobody need be consulted.
The question of minimum height comes into this and, in the case about which I have been speaking, the height set is 6,500 feet. What is taken into consideration when determining the minimum height? It seems that there are no technical reasons why aircraft should not fly above 6,500 feet. I assume, therefore, that the considerations that exist are economic ones. What are they? We must compare them with the plight of those over whom the aircraft are flying. I suspect that it is too easy for the Government to take the view, "Because it would increase aircraft costs a little if they were obliged to fly at a higher minimum height, we will take that aspect into account rather than the interests of the constituents concerned". I hope that the Minister will say clearly, when making Orders under Clause 18, what criteria he takes into account.

Mr. Burden: All the aircraft operators want is to attain height as quickly as possible. The economics of the aircraft become more viable as it gains height.

Mr. Higgins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps—and I am not clear about this—this is why we should specify a greater height The Minister should spell it out. The general public is not aware of the considerations, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) will agree that this is so. While I welcome Clause 18, I am concerned that sufficient Orders are not going to be made under it or under earlier legislation. I hope that the Minister will widen the scope of consultation in future and make greater use of the powers we propose to give him in Clause 18.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: There is only one noise which is the sort of noise which cannot be beaten by the place in which it is made. But this is a noise we could get over by having airports on the coast. Aircraft flying over the sea disturb no one. Supersonic noise over land effects the whole of the land area. In the generality of things, therefore, it is highly undesirable that supersonic flying should be permitted at all over the land mass of the United Kingdom, except in grave and exceptional circumstances.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Burden: I want to make a couple of quick observations in the time left. We feel that more time should have been given for Third Reading, particularly with regard to certain aspects of the Bill. When the Bill first arrived, we were told that it would probably be through in one sitting of the Standing Committee. In fact we sat for eight sittings in Committee and the Bill was considerably changed for the better.
Under the Bill, a considerable number of byelaws will be made which will involve people in certain penalties if they break them. Nowhere in the Bill is there an indication of how and to what extent the byelaws will be made known to the ordinary public who visit airfields, and this is extremely important.
I, too, want to make a point about noise. The Bill gives the Minister certain powers but it is in the interests of the public and of the Government that a distinct differentiation should be made between the problems of the sonic bang and of the ordinary noise of an operational aircraft which is not going through the bang. They are two inter-related but different problems. We should have been able to talk about them today. There is considerable interest in the subject and it is essential that it should be discussed.
Because of the size of this country, there is no need at any time for our people to be subject to the problem of the sonic bang. I hope that the Minister will bear this in mind and make it known that this is so. The aircraft constructors are engaged in the task of considerably reducing aircraft noise, and it is essential that, while this proceeds, the opportunity of extending the economic capabilities of airfields in this country at night and during the day should be given full scope.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The reasons why we need an extended and thorough Third Reading debate on this Bill were given fully by the Minister of State in Committee, as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT at column 232. He was good enough to put his name to the Motion calling for more time. There are quite a number of definite factors which need to be ventilated during Third Reading—

It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

THEFT BILL [Lords]

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.

IRON AND STEEL (COMPENSATION TO EMPLOYEES)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I beg to move,
That the Iron and Steel (Compensation to Employees) Regulations, 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.
These Regulations require the British Steel Corporation to pay compensation to those staff, or former staff, of the Iron and Steel Board and the nationalised companies who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights in consequence of nationalisation or subsequent organisational changes giving effect to conclusions reported by the Corporation to the Minister in a report on organisation, or to a direction by the Minister to the Corporation on organisation. The pattern of compensation embodied in them is based on the pattern for statutory redundancy which, has been applied by successive Governments over the last twenty years. The most recent example is the Harbour Reorganisation (Compensation to Employees) Regulations, 1967.
As the Act requires, we have consulted the British Steel Corporation and the trade unions in the preparation of these Regulations. The Regulations will have effect from 28th July, 1967—that is, vesting day for the B.S.C. If the House


wishes, I will gladly give a fuller explanation of the Regulations and answer points and questions asked by hon. Members, but, as they give effect to well established policy, what I have said may be sufficient.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The general level of compensation proposed in these Regulations is acceptable and so is the general tenor of the Regulations. There are points which one could make about them but, under the circumstances, they seem to be generally reasonable.
I make only one point in relation to the Regulations in general. That is the rather mean provision that income over £8,000 per annum should be disregarded. The Socialist Government have to get used to the fact that higher salaries will have to be paid because they themselves are beginning to turn to this in their own policies. The idea that they can keep salaries down by means of this sort of provision is hardly worthy of the Government.
The terms of the Regulations apply only to ex-members of the Iron and Steel Board or the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Authority or any of the scheduled companies which were nationalised. This leaves out those who worked in the Iron and Steel Federation. This matter was debated at length in Committee on the Bill and I have no intention of going over that ground again.
The reason why these people were excluded was the precedent that wherever a Measure of this sort was brought in, the provisions in relation to pensions and compensation related only to those directly affected and not to those indirectly affected, but the then Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) gave an assurance which I bring to the notice of the present Parliamentary Secretary. The hon. Gentleman said:
The whole question of the withdrawal of scheduled companies from the Federation is a complex matter, and the rôle of the staff is an integral part of it. If hon. Gentlemen think of the necessity of retaining the good will of the staff who will return to the Corporation, they will see that these negotiations are not likely to be in any way unfavourable to the staff of the Federation."

—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 13th December, 1966; c. 2266.]
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that, provided that the negotiations were carried on in good faith and concluded satisfactorily, he saw no reason why the members of the staff of the Federation should not be treated just as well as anybody else concerned.
The negotiations over the ending of the Federation have been concluded. The Parliamentary Secretary said this last week in our debate on the Corporation's borrowing powers:
The speedy success of these complicated negotiations is a tribute to the good sense of the leaders of the Federation in realising that nationalisation had now come to stay…."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July 1968; Vol. 768. c. 941.]
This being so, and there having been good sense and reasonableness in the negotiations, the position remains that members of the staff of the Federation are in a much less favourable position at law than members of the staffs of the Boards, the Holding and Realisation Authority, or of the companies. We realise that this not a deliberate attempt to exclude them from the provisions, but it puts them in the position where they, and they alone, are not able to claim compensation if they are dismissed, or if in any other way their employment prospects are impaired.
For instance, those who worked in the steel industry before nationalisation all found themselves in the Federation, in the Steel Board or in one of the companies. There were frequent changes of the higher members of the staff from one to another. It is palpably unfair that those who happened to be in the Steel Board or one of the companies at the time of nationalisation should be treated in an entirely different way from those who were in any of the other organisations.
The agreement has been made. The vast bulk of the members of the Federation have been taken on by the British Steel Corporation. So far, everything has gone well. All that I ask now from the Parliamentary Secretary is that he should give an undertaking, as far as he can, that it is the intention of the Corporation to treat those who were in the Federation on no less favourable terms, if it should come to compensation, than those who were in the Boards, or the companies, etc.


Though there is no legal force to the hon. Gentleman's undertaking, I can assure him that to a very small, but quite important, number of people it will be valuable. Such an assurance would clear up the Opposition's few and remaining doubts about the whole subject. If the Parliamentary Secretary could give that undertaking, there would be no need to detain the House on these Regulations.

Mr. Freeson: With the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker. Although I do not think that I can give an undertaking in precisely the terms in which the question was put to me, I can say that all of the staff of the British Iron and Steel Federation were offered employment by the British Steel Corporation on the same terms as those employed directly by the Corporation. As I understand the position, those who accepted are being treated in precisely the same way as all the rest of the Corporation's employees.
I have no reason to doubt that the B.S.C. will treat this matter fairly and properly, but at the end of the day it must be recognised that the Corporation will not be judge in its own cause, although it will have to decide the compensation in the first instance, because there will be a right of appeal to the industrial tribunals set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity under the Industrial Training Act, 1964.
As I understand it, there will be cases where the position of some people might be uncertain; but, in so far as it is possible to be fair and just, the Corporation will do its duty properly. However, at the end of the day it will be possible for people to go to a form of arbitration to get their position clarified and, if they are entitled in the end to compensation, they will be granted it.

Question put and agreed to.

THAMESMEAD

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I am glad to have this opportunity to draw attention to certain problems connected with Thamesmead. As the House knows, this is a major construction project amounting in effect to a new town, the bulk of which will fall in my constituency of Woolwich, East. Over 15 years, Thamesmead will provide for 17,000 dwellings and about 60,000 residents. The first occupants moved in a week or two ago and are delighted by their accommodation and their prospects. The whole project receives the strongest support from Londoners and is wholeheartedly backed by all parties on the Greater London Council and by the Greenwich Borough Council.
The project was master-minded by the Labour administration on the G.L.C. and is now being vigorously carried forward by the G.L.C. under its Conservative leadership, including the Thamesmead Committee under its chairman Councillor Seaton Forbes Cockell.
The project is of vast importance to Londoners. It offers London's major prospect for new housing in the years ahead, easily the biggest construction project of its kind in the County of London. I am glad to know—I need not raise this with the Minister—that now, after an uncertain start, applications are coming in from industrialists who wish to move to the 170 acres of land allocated for industrial purposes in Thamesmead. I understand that 11 firm applications have been received. Far more are needed, but it is not a bad start in all the circumstances. I only wish that the industrial development in Thamesmead could take place soon enough and on a large enough scale to make a contribution towards solving the problem created by the sudden closure of the great A.E.I, factory which formerly employed 5,500 workers.
My purpose this afternoon is to raise a decision of the Ministry relating to the amount of shopping area to be provided in Thamesmead. As a result of building new towns and expanded towns over


many years, we have great experience of how much shopping area is required for a given population. The amount varies according to the different circumstances of a new town, an expanded town or a magnificent great project like Thamesmead, but in general it can be said that the proper allocation, the normal routine allocation, of shopping area for a place the size of Thamesmead would be about 350,000 sq. ft. Nevertheless, when the plan came to be made by the G.L.C., bearing in mind the proximity of Thamesmead to Woolwich and to Erith, much less than that was scheduled in the plans-only 200,000 sq. ft. for a shopping centre and 40,000 sq. ft. for neighbourhood shopping. This at the time was a controversial decision, only 200,000 sq. ft. I had worries as to whether it would be enough, but now the position is that the Minister has amended the plan and actually halved the proposed allocation, and now imposes a ceiling, to last until 1978 at least, of only 100,000 sq. ft. This is a strange decision.
I recall the building of a large G.L.C. housing estate just south of the Thamesmead site, at Eynsham. I remember that the G.L.C. provided insufficient shopping facilities, and my constituents in Eynsham were constantly coming to me and criticising, quite rightly, the lack of provision for shopping in the G.L.C. estate. Now it seems that the Ministry will insist on a similar mistake being made on a far greater and more serious scale in Thamesmead.
Why is this? It is an extraordinary story. Some years ago, when Erith was an urban district council, there was a danger, partly because of its geographical location, of it becoming a backwater and the shoppers going off to Bexley. Erith decided to build a grand new shopping centre covering 210,000 sq. ft, with the idea of attracting back its own shoppers from Bexley. The St. Martins Property Company was given the job of planning and progressing this development. Later, the urban district council disappeared, it was merged with Bexley, and the head of steam went out of the project, and there was a serious danger of this vast shopping centre becoming a white elephant.
Fortunately, the G.L.C. put forward its great project for Thamesmead, a project

involving 60,000 residents with a spending power of £10·8 million, of which it is estimated that £5 million will go to Woolwich and Erith. No matter how many shops Thamesmead had, the establishment of Thamesmead would still be a gain to the traders of Erith. There would still be more Thamesmead shoppers going to Erith than Erith shoppers going to Thamesmead. Nevertheless, obviously, the fewer shops there are in Thamesmead the greater the gain to Erith and the greater possibility of salvaging the Erith scheme. The Bexley Council began to exert strong pressure to deprive future Thamesmead citizens of their proper allocation of shopping facilities. What is surprising is that the Minister should have yielded and should have amended the plan to the ceiling of 100,000 sq. ft. only by 1978. That is two-thirds of the shopping area of Selfridge's store in Oxford Street, and that is for the whole of Thamesmead.
By 1978 there will already be 40,000 residents in Thamesmead. There will be too few shops for them, the shops will be too crowded and the matter has now been made uncertain by the Ministry. What happens after 1978? The Minister may say there should be more shops. How do we know? How does the developer know that he will be allowed to develop after 1978, and of course the big people want to go there with the prospect of expansion if they are sucessful. But the Minister has deprived them of this prospect of expansion.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I hestitate to interrupt my hon. Friend, but he has used the word "deprived". I take it that he is aware that there was a three-week public inquiry into this scheme at which Greater London Council took the opportunity to present its case, and the Minister's proposed modifications are based on the outcome of that inquiry.

Mr. Mayhew: Certainly there was a public inquiry and, if the Minister does not alter his decision, there will be another, and I hope, as a result, this unfortunate decision will be reversed. But the effect is to deprive Thamesmead of its shopping, and that is what worries me.
However, I must be careful not to become entangled with my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), and I must not encroach on


his responsibilities. I am speaking, I hope, as the future hon. Member for Thamesmead.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Part of it.

Mr. Mayhew: Part of it, yes, and that is why I am speaking today.
If the Minister's plan is persisted in and survives a public inquiry, it will mean that the 60,000 inhabitants of Thamesmead get 100,000 sq. ft. of shopping space, and the 70,000 inhabitants of Erith get 210,000 sq. ft.
We should not try to solve this problem of the Erith shopping centre at the expense of Thamesmead. I do not want to say harsh things about Bexley. The inhabitants of Bexley are our neighbours and friends, but I feel obliged to say on (he subject of Thamesmead that I think that the Conservative leadership in Bexley has shewn itself to be extremely narrow-minded and short-sighted.
If Thamesmead people want to shop in Erith, that is well and good. But it would be monstrous to coerce them into doing so by depriving them of proper shopping facilities of their own. That would create strong and well-justified resentment in Thamesmead against Bexley Council which I know that Bexley people do not want. What is more, it is distressing to see some Conservatives in Bexley broadening an attack on Thamesmead's shopping facilities into an attack on the project itself. I have seen it described as a juggernaut. I have seen accusations about extravagant council house building. I implore them to cease their campaign of sniping and obstruction and co-operate with the overwhelming majority of local people, Tory, Labour, Liberal and non-party, who understand London's housing needs and want Thamesmead to succeed.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider this. I understand that his mind is not closed, and this is evidenced by the fact that he has invited discussions from G.L.C. officials with his own officials. In any case, if he persists in this decision, there will be a public inquiry, and I think that none of those who have the welfare of Thamesmead at heart intend to let the matter rest.
There is a second worry which I wish to put to the Minister. There is the delay in his approval of the next

stage of house building. A formal submission for the next stage involving 1,600 houses was made in January. There have been endless meetings since, but there has been no answer from the Ministry. I should like to ask why everything so far has been delay. The carefully phased construction plan has had to be put back because the Minister has not given his approval.
London's housing problem is an urgent one. Thamesmead is London's great opportunity to make an inroad into its housing lists, yet, instead of spurring on the G.L.C, the Ministry is holding it back. I should like to know the reason.
I would point out to the Minister that we have now a large industrial building factory in full operation. If it cannot erect the houses because the Ministry's Approval continues to be delayed, a serious crisis could arise in the whole construction plan.
A final problem which worries the supporters of Thamesmead is that the whole scheme was planned round the provision of a tunnel underneath the Thames. Now strong suggestions are being made that it would be cheaper and therefore better to build a bridge instead of a tunnel. The bridge would disrupt the whole Thamesmead plan. It would take hundreds of acres of building land. It would cut the principal residential area in two. It would ruin the main park planned for Thamesmead, dividing it in two, and it would overshadow hundreds of houses. It would create a noise nuisance for thousands of residents and it would seriously spoil the entire appearance of Thamesmead. If the Government were to use their financial powers to insist on a change from a tunnel to a bridge at this stage, it would be an outrageous act of bureaucracy and Philistinism.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Hear, hear.

Mr. Mayhew: I am glad to have my hon. Friend's support.
I urge the Government to remember that we are here building for future generations, for people whose aspirations and living standards will be far above those of today. Let us therefore build a town at Thamesmead of which not only this generation but future generations may be proud.

4.26 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) has taken this opportunity of drawing attention to some of the problems and some of the great potentialities which lie in Thamesmead. As everybody agrees, it is a remarkable undertaking for which everyone will wish the best possible future. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend record that the first people are now moving into the first stage of housing, that they are enjoying it and that the project is off to a good start. I shall therefore not waste the time of the House by saying anything about the points of agreement. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that in general my right hon. Friend is anxious to see Thamesmead go on and wishes it well and wants to do all he can to help.
I shall direct my attention to the three matters on which there are differences of opinion, and the first of these is the shopping area. It is perfectly true that after a long and exhaustive inquiry—and this is the democratic method of sorting out these disputes—into the proposal to amend the development plan, the inspector made recommendations and the decision letter proposed to limit the shopping centre to 100,000 instead of 200,000 sq. ft. My hon. Friend's argument was impeccable up to that point. However, he rather glossed over another important matter when he said that there was no certainty about what would happen in 1978, but that what it amounted to was that the amount of land for the shopping centre was to be halved.
The point is that our proposal is not that the overall area should be halved, but only that in the immediate development we should start with a smaller area and go on with the larger area after 1978. It would be wrong for the House to get the impression, as my hon. Friend rather graphically implied, that this was all the shopping area which there was to be for this great population. We are talking about the shopping centre and there is no reason why neighbourhood shopping should not go on, the little shop at the corner, and all the other essential provisions which the Greater London Council, with its great experience

in council house development, will ensure. That is not affected by the proposal for the provision of shopping areas to meet the immediate needs of the population. What is under argument is the rate of development of the shopping centre.
It is true that this is our present view and that it is up to others to put forward counter proposals, all to be thrashed out, if necessary, at a public inquiry. No final decision has been taken. There are two reasons why one has to think about this matter rather carefully, and one of them is the trend in other areas, such as Erith. It is not enough just to say, "Erith got themselves a white elephant, so let them go on with it—we will grab all the shopping." It will not work like that. With wise planning, we have tried to control shopping. Otherwise, one gets lack of development and lack of investing capital because each neutralises the other. One therefore has to look at the total position.
I do not think that it at all follows that because the Erith development has not gone with the momentum that was hoped for, it is due to incompetence; that, perhaps to mix my metaphors, Erith somehow got sold a pup. What has happened is that there has been generally in London and in the rest of the country a change in outlook on the commercial prospects of town centre development. There was a halcyon period of tremendous development, with developers going round anxious to get almost any site that they could develop. Now, the draught is being felt and there is much less certainty that these schemes will not cut into each other. It is, therefore, good economics, good finance and good planning to be cautious, and to watch the rate at which one gets development. That is why we are sounding this note of caution about the proposals, but we have not said in our decision letter that we want to cut down completely.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am rather worried lest my hon. Friend may inadvertently have given the impression that something was not quite right with the Erith town centre development. I would remind him that the Erith town centre development is itself unique, with the local authorities and the developer working together and the ratepayers sharing any surplus from the equity.
Would my hon. Friend also bear in mind that the present council of the London Borough of Bexley fully continues the policy pursued by the previous council of supporting wholeheartedly the Minister's modifications at Thamesmead?

Mr. MacColl: I am sorry. I thought that I was supporting Erith and Crayford in saying that it was not its fault, but now I am being scolded for having apparently suggested that it was not a well planned scheme. I was not implying that. I was only implying that the economic climate has changed and that we have to condition ourselves to it. If the ratepayers may have a share in the equity we should watch all the more carefully to see that there is not a tug of war with nothing happening because all the resources are being utilised. We want to ensure that there is adequate shopping available where it is needed at the rate at which the population requires it.
I want to explain the position in respect of stage 2 housing. Stage I has been approved, and people are already moving in. That is so because that stage was designed and the whole layout done before any question of applying the cost yardstick arose. That is commonly agreed, and that stage has gone through. Similarly, there is common agreement that stage 3 and further stages should come under the normal tests of the cost yardstick.
Stage 2 is in a sort of no-man's-land where the rigidity of the cost yardstick does not apply, but it is still very necessary that my right hon. Friend should give careful scrutiny to the cost—not just to apply the yardstick in a sort of routine and blind way but in the general public interest, both from the point of view of the amount of subsidy involved and the total of the very limited amount of capital available for house building in the public sector, and making quite certain that all possible safeguards are being observed and that costs are being kept down.
To some extent it is true that there have been endless meetings and journeyings between the Greater London Council and my Department. We have not lost this proposal, or stuck it in a pigeon hole just to annoy my hon. Friend. Ever

since the proposal first came in we have had a vigorous exchange of ideas about it and my right hon. Friend is hoping to be able to come to a conclusion about it quickly. But it would not help for a quick decision if I went into detail and explained some of the points at issue. The problem arises not over our desire to be difficult but because of our overwhelming responsibility to see that public money is spent wisely. In these days, above all, the public sector has to be kept carefully under financial control. We cannot afford to waste money doing something which will not provide full value for the expenditure of our resources.
I appreciate my hon. Friend's point about the factory for industrialised buildings. We shall watch this carefully and make certain that we phase it in in such a way that it is fully occupied. We have a responsibility for maintaining the momentum.
As for the crossing of the river, the tunnel is much more expensive than the bridge. I gather that that is a hard fact. The Greater London Council— whose responsibility this is—is looking carefully into the problem of what is in the public interest and what it would be best to provide. In the last three days information has come in from the Greater London Council, which is providing us with particulars which will enable us, together with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and the Council itself, to come to a decision. We all want something which is economical and, at the same time, worthy of Thames-mead.

Mr. Mayhew: Will my hon. Friend take a personal interest in this tunnel and bridge decision? I know that he has considerable interest in subjects of amenity as well as all the other factors that go into this decision.

Mr. MacColl: I assure my hon. Friend that as a general busybody I take a personal interest in these matters. I am aware of what is going on. My right hon. Friend is also aware of the point and will be discussing it with the Minister of Transport. It is a question of finding what is the best form of crossing.
I hope that I shall not sound complacent and pompous if I say that


Thamesmead is a wonderful scheme, tremendously worth having, but that it will not benefit all the people living there, it will not benefit the people who have to pay rents and rates, it will not benefit my hon. Friend's future constituents, if it is extravagantly planned, without adequate scrutiny of the implications of all

that is being done. Everybody in the partnership must treat it realistically and make certain that we get good value for money.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Five o'clock.